about using larger than a /8 for private
> networking. Why not use IPv6?
>
well now you are speaking hexadecimal!
> Regards,
> Christopher Hawker
best
Christian
> ---------
pplications together within our own private distributed nets and expose
our services for public consumption over IPv6.
C
Christian de Larrinaga
Christian Christopher Hawker writes
> Hi Denis,
>
> It will only be burned through if RIR communities change policies to allow
> for
either
> or try both then decide.
>
> The above is just a quick rough thought, far from polished. It is
> intended to be a preliminary framework so that we can hang some meat
> on it for starting meaningful discussions.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2022-04-01 14:17)
>
>
On 27 March 2022 15:53:25 Brandon Butterworth wrote:
On Sun Mar 27, 2022 at 12:31:48AM -0400, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
EzIP proposes to deploy 240/4
address based RANs, each tethering off the current Internet via one IPv4
public address.
So each RAN has no possibility of redundant connection
quot;
on
the government NIAP list.
https://www.niap-ccevs.org/product/PCL.cfm?ID624=34
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
Christian de Larrinaga
https://firsthand.net
:
At least 100/100.
We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore,
that’s what I’d
start everyone at if I could.
At $50/month or less?
Maximize number of households of all demographic
groups.
--
Christian de Larrinaga
https://firsthand.net
house in the middle of a public park, it’s
not _what they’re doing in the house_ that concerns me.
-Bill
--
Christian de Larrinaga
https://firsthand.net
Brandon, That is odd. Might this be an artefact of cellular carriers
being fixated on revenue protection of their inter carrier rates. Are
they (wrongly) assuming a public IP might be a grey market termination
risk onto their networks?
best
Christian
Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> On Sat Oct 13,
Tei wrote:
>
> Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information
> so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so
> I can't show in their house and steal their dog.
>
> I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on
> the internet.
.
>
> NANOG doesn't seem to have that issue. Any background on the process
> to get there? Any regrets?
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
>
> The Brothers WISP
>
--
Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP,
-
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net
-
en. It is important to have this
> discussion in the open, and explicitly mark the transition where Internet
> Exchange Points re-organise themselves to accommodate spying laws and
> gag orders.
>
> William Waites
> Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science
>
document their default lat/long
> values so that users know that when these values, they know it is a
> generic one for that country. (or supply +181. +91.0 which is an
> invalid value indicating that there is no lat/long, look at country code
> given).
--
Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP,
-
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net
-
going for $6-$8 each and it being possible to support hundreds or
> thousands of websites on a single IPv4 address, there's really no excuse.
>
> Will this be different in the future? I sure hope so. But we're not
> there yet.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
--
Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP,
-
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net
-
keted as a
>> bunch of /16s - they might also entertain the possibility of selling it as
>> an entire /8 for a reasonable price.
>>
>> I'm wondering: have we passed the point of peak IPv4 scarcity? Is selling
>> an entire /8 still a viable proposition? Apparently UK Gov may have more
>> than one...
>>
>>- alec
>>
>> --
>> http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm
--
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net
-
hilarious! Now we know that open really means ... closed.
C
Alex Buie wrote:
> They apparently have different "zones" (ie, they run 5 different, separate
> roots), and you pay a different price depending on how many "zones" you
> want your TLD to be active in. (cf
> http://www.open-root.eu/our-rat
v6 traffic picking up through L3/HE?
/C
On 12 Apr 2012, at 16:35, Dave Sotnick wrote:
> Yep, looks much better now.
>
> This is what Level3 had to say:
>
> "David,
>
> You should see this repaired at this time, looks like the peering
> between L3 and HE crashed in
> stateside when the ipv6 max
;-) So that is what "very rough consensus" looks like operationally!
IESG Note
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg09959.html
Christian
On 15 Mar 2012, at 06:59, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
>>> CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
>> A
not just the .au govt
C
On 23 Feb 2012, at 07:54, Jay Mitchell wrote:
> I'm laughing now, but it wasn't funny a couple of hours ago. Seems a lot of
> the .au govt needs to learn some carrier diversity...
>
> On 23/02/2012, at 4:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> don't filter your customers. when t
The DNS "industry" is putting us a long way from when RFC 2826 was written.
Christian
On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:31, John Levine wrote:
>> Nice. Basically, unless the TLD registrar has a public policy that
>> basically says
>> "We don't allow names with cyrillic C to collide with MICROSOFT", thei
You tell that to
http://www.charset.org/punycode.php?encoded=xn--m_omaaamk.com&decode=Punycode+to+normal+text
Normal text
FMQQSQQT.com
to Punycode
xn--m_omaaamk.com
?
On 20 Dec 2011, at 17:00, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Eduardo A. Suárez wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
Lucky rich you to have such capacious v4 connectivity to be worrying about such
downstream stuff. The rest of the world is starring at abyss of zero
connectivity unless it deploys v6.
Solve that one.
Christian
On 11 Nov 2011, at 07:15, Brett Watson wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Le
You know I don't need Facebook to introduce (broker) me to anyone! I am more
than happy managing my own relationships (gradations of trust included!) Oh and
my friends are distributed in the real world as well!
This works pretty well even without a "social network" or a "system". When the
Digi
exactly. don't plan to deploy what breaks things for the user edge.
there are two issues here
1/ what ISPs do that might break things at the edge
2/ what edge stuff is doing that will break things at the other end edge of a
connection
It seems a bit odd that ISPs would actively plot to do 1
I can predict the response from the teen dens of the world!
What does CGN mean .. Can't Get Nothing!
Christian
On 9 Sep 2011, at 17:06, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> On Friday 09 Sep 2011 16:25:35 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:09:38 EDT, Jean-
> francois.tremblay
I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that the edge of
Internet has a stake in getting this right too! This is not just an ISP problem
but one where content providers and services that is the users need to get from
here to there in good order.
So
What can users do to
via gogo6 tunnel box (http://gogo6.com/) from my UK location
( not tested other tunnels nor native)
$ telnet -6 www.savvis.com 80
Trying 2001:460:100:1000::37...
Connected to www.savvis.net.
$ ping6 www.savvis.com
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:5c0:1110:8000:217:f2ff:fee6:ab79 -->
2001:460:100:1
The audio I found at
http://ietf80streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf80/ietf80-ch4-wed-am.mp3
Christian
On 3 Apr 2011, at 20:53, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 11:44 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> From: Joao C. Mendes Ogawa
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:14 PM
>>> Subject: Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhau
Now that is what Baldrick* would call "a cunning plan!"
And interesting examples.
Christian
*Apologies to Tony Robinson and Blackadder
On 12 Mar 2011, at 18:52, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrot
Do please let me know which major global network provider this is. Off-list if
you prefer.
Christian
On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:39, George Bonser wrote:
> Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier
> 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the UK.
>
Can anybody point to dependable analysis of the performance credentials on
"green" (CO2/carbon neutral, recycling, etc) and financial cost recovery of the
Internet vendors such Juniper and Cisco et al?
The story emerging here is not looking very encouraging.
Christian
On 13 Feb 2011, at
30 matches
Mail list logo
