On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:03:41 -0500
Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:20:01 -0600
Max Pierson nmaxpier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough
addresses
in to allow for things nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years
and
then some.
As Roland said,
Possibly, as long as we
Hi Owen.
The downside is that it doesn't provide enough bits for certain kinds of
auto-topology
management that are being considered by CE vendors. I highly recommend /48
instead.
I've seen this claim (you need a /48) from your side several times,
but never seen any explanation why a /56
V4 30 years ago -- expected consumption: ~60 /8s of 256.
IPv6 today -- expected consumption: Maybe 15 /12s of 4096.
The scales in question are vastly different.
I made no such comparison between the two. The scales are vastly different,
but I think you're still missing my point. 30 years ago, no
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. I think if it takes 11
years
it will be because of significant foot-dragging by some key organizations.
I'm not
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. I think if it takes 11
years
it will be because of
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough
addresses
in to allow for things nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years
and
then some.
As Roland said,
Possibly, as long as we don't blow through them via exercises in profligacy
nobody has heretofore thought of,
On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'd like to see IPv4 go away in ~3 years. Any faster would be too traumatic.
I think 6 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. I think
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 07:04:31 PST, Owen DeLong said:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are
talking about a business class service. Even with my static IPs at
home, I have no need for more than a single /64 to be
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are
talking about a business class service. Even with my static IPs at
home, I have no need for more than a single /64 to be used in my wildest
dreams. I could live with ~256 ips for the
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I expect that in ~3 years, we will see dual-stack and /64's handed out in
conjunction with an IPv4 address as common.
The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Security and logical division are a few ideas.
You might not care to do that now... but in 20 years, when you have
10 smart chip / IP-based home automation enabled devices on your
LAN.
My helpdesk decided to counter with We'll run out because of
On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are talking
about a business class service. Even with my static IPs at home, I have
no need for more than a single /64 to be
On Jan 25, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Max Pierson wrote:
I think you may still be missing my point...
There are way more /48s available than will ever get used.
There are way more /32s available than will ever get used.
No, I think you're missing my point. Your statements above are of your
On Jan 26, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Max Pierson wrote:
V4 30 years ago -- expected consumption: ~60 /8s of 256.
IPv6 today -- expected consumption: Maybe 15 /12s of 4096.
The scales in question are vastly different.
I made no such comparison between the two. The scales are vastly different,
but
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm saying that in IPv6, we've put enough addresses in to allow for things
nobody has thought of in 30, 60, 90, even 100 years and then some.
Possibly, as long as we don't blow through them via exercises in profligacy
nobody has heretofore
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Max Pierson wrote:
Hi List,
Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
that I do, it will probably change down the road anyways), but here goes.
From
From: Max Pierson
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:20 AM
To: nanog group
Subject: Another v6 question
From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most
are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read
where
someone stated that they were
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Max Pierson wrote:
From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
accepting anything smaller than a
On 1/25/2011 10:19, Max Pierson wrote:
From the provider perspective, what is the prefix-length that most are
accepting to be injected into your tables?? 2 or so years ago, I read where
someone stated that they were told by ATT that they weren't planning on
accepting anything smaller than a
On Jan 25, 2011, at 12:03 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Second, as I was crunching a few numbers to get a rough estimate of what a
global table would look like in say 3 or 5 years after v4 is exhausted (I
understand that it's completely unpredictable to do this, but curiosity
wrote:
Hi List,
Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
that I do, it will probably change down the road anyways), but here goes.
From the provider perspective, what is the prefix
25, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Max Pierson wrote:
Hi List,
Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be one
that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
that I do
DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Max Pierson wrote:
Hi List,
Sorry to bring up yet ANOTHER v6 question/topic, but this seems to be
one
that I cannot get a solid answer on (and probably won't and in the event
that I do, it will probably change down the road
24 matches
Mail list logo
