on Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 02:59:55PM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
4. For other reasons laid out in this thread, PTR is not the best choice.
Additionally, administrators of mailservers who have no idea what a PTR
is -- although their entry fee to the Internet mail system is debatable
As of about an hour ago ATT appear to have started blocking access to a few
of our IP addresses. This is being done at a /32 level, and the IP addresses
above and below are still allowed through.
Has anyone seen them do this before, or know who I need to contact to get it
fixed? ATT won't talk
On Dec 9, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
Traceroute to the neighboring IP addresses don't go anywhere near the above
path, so it's apparently a blackhole of sorts.
Are they bots or CC servers, or open DNS recursors
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Traceroute to the neighboring IP addresses don't go anywhere near the
above path, so it's apparently a blackhole of sorts.
Are they bots or CC servers, or open DNS recursors?
They are (authenticated-required) proxy
On Dec 9, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
They are (authenticated-required) proxy servers with 10's of thousands of
users behind them, so it's possible that they were seeing some bot-like
traffic from them, although the volume would have been tiny compared to the
volume of
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:22:50 -0500, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
As of about an hour ago ATT appear to have started blocking access to a
few of our IP addresses.
ATT won't talk to me as I'm not a customer...
So, wait, are they your addresses or not?
--
Paul
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Paul Bennett paul.w.benn...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:22:50 -0500, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
As of about an hour ago ATT appear to have started blocking access to a
few of our IP addresses.
ATT won't talk to me as I'm not a customer
:16
To: Bill Stewartnonobvi...@gmail.com
Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripesna...@merit.edu; Joe
Grecojgr...@ns.sol.net
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Bill Stewart wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only was
autoconfiguration
Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org writes:
FireWire is the only significant user of EUI-64 addresses to date;
if you're using a link layer with EUI-48 addresses
Zigbee has been around a lot less time than FireWire, but is hardly
insignificant (ask anyone who's working on smartgrid or green
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 at
10:43:17PM -0400 Quoting Ricky Beam (jfb...@gmail.com):
The address space has be carved out;
there's no uncutting that pie. (much in the same way the /8 handed out
in the early 80's aren't being reclaimed.)
I believe
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:49 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Because more is more, and it makes it less likely that people will start
to invent silly solutions to problems that do not really exist. With a
/56, I can't really
Internet IP addresses
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
What is missing, unless I've missed a protocol (which is always
possible), is an automated way for a CPE to assign it's
networks, pass
other networks out to downstream routers in an on-need basis. I say
on-need
Carsten Bormann wrote:
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57) to
the first asker, then a /58, then a /59 etc. The first asker (nested
CPE) has a /57, reserves a /64 for itself (SAA), hands out a
On May 6, 2009, at 14:52, Jack Bates wrote:
Better standards
Sure!
(You are preaching to the choir here.)
While we are still on the way there, we just:
1) Shouldn't waste time reinventing decisions that are a done deal
(say, EUI-64 in SAA).
2) Shouldn't use the lack of our favorite
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
On May 5, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Look, the Ark *is* finished. It floats. It can be steered. It has
space
for everyone. The fact that some of the plumbing is a bit iffy is just
not a major issue right now; getting everybody on board is. We have
LOTS
of very clever people ready
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:24 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is
-Original Message-
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need
to generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:57:53AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Of course, the builders used screen doors and windows for the
below-the-waterline openings, but not to worry, the bilge pump equivalent
of Moore's Law will undoubtedly save us.
Speaking as a builder, I have to say the screen doors
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:09 -0400, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP already does 3041, so I assume
Vista,
2008, and 7 all
On Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:15 -0400, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria
for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as not aggressive. (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default
criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as not aggressive. (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
Fair enough, but IMHO it is aggressive enough to accomplish the
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
That's exactly how IPv4 was seen long ago, and we've been and will be living
with that mistake for decades.
It was fixed 15 years ago, but not before more than half the space was
wasted. With IPv6 we can use current policy and only waste a /3 and
then
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
That's exactly how IPv4 was seen long ago, and we've been and will be
living with that mistake for decades.
It was fixed 15 years ago, but not before more than half the space was
wasted. With IPv6 we can use current policy
-Message d'origine-
De : char...@thewybles.com [mailto:char...@thewybles.com]
Envoyé : mardi 5 mai 2009 05:18
À : na...@merit.edu
Objet : Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Re sending... I know operational content is frowned on :) ... However in an
effort to avoid this thread getting
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jack Bates:
Sorry, Ricky. But that won't work. EUI-64 is required for autoconfig,
and it expands the 48 bits to 64 bits by inserting or FFFE
depending on if the original is a MAC-48 or EUI-48 identifier.
I'm rather puzzled why this blatant layering violation is
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
nonobvi...@gmail.com wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you
Joe Greco wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
I view with suspicion the notion that an ISP is going to take addressing
On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:08:51 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
For today. But, remember, this sort of shortsightedness is what landed
us in the current IPv4 pain.
48bit MACs have caused IPv4 address exhaustion? Wow. I didn't know that.
No, thinking small is what landed us in
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:04:49 +1000
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 04:49 +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it
and let people subnet however they want.
[...]
do other than 64 and you do not get
([*] according to the wiki, firewire and zigbee are the only things
using EUI-64. I don't know of anyone using firewire as a network
backbone. (obviously, not that you care.) Zigbee is relatively new and
similar to bluetooth; will people use them as a NIC or connect little
zigbee gadgets
Charles Wyble wrote:
([*] according to the wiki, firewire and zigbee are the only things
using EUI-64. I don't know of anyone using firewire as a network
backbone. (obviously, not that you care.) Zigbee is relatively new
and similar to bluetooth; will people use them as a NIC or connect
Joe Greco wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
I view with suspicion the notion that an ISP is going to take addressing
Joe Greco wrote:
Now, the question is, if you're sending all these prefix requests up to
the ISP's router, why is *that* device able to cope with it, and why is
the CPE device *not* able to cope with it?
The CPE cannot cope with it due to lack of a chaining standard and the
lack of customer
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
What is missing, unless I've missed a protocol (which is always possible), is
an automated way for a CPE to assign it's networks, pass other networks out
to downstream routers in an on-need basis. I say on-need, as there may be 3
routers directly behind
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as between the ISP
and the home?
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
I see little reason why the main home gateway can't get a /56 from the
ISP, and then hand out /62 (or whatever) to any routers within the
On Tue, 05 May 2009 09:13:06 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
No, it's not too late to make simple changes. We're still figuring out
lots of bits about it.
Yes, it is too late. IPv6 as it stands is a huge pile of crap and bloat.
We'd be better off straping the whole mess and
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
Are you sure? Isn't it just that the current implementations do?
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then what
about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the router
Ricky Beam wrote:
Yes, we all are. We will all be given a minimum of a /64, while no one
has a need for even a billionth of that space, and aren't likely to for
the forseeable future. When they do, *then* give them the space they
need. Ah, but renumbering is a pain, you say. That's another
Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out
an RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the
sophisticated users who want routed behavior override it manually.
Jack Bates wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
Now, the question is, if you're sending all these
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble char...@thewybles.com
wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's millions
and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they even be able to.
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble
char...@thewybles.com wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's
millions and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they
Jack Bates wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as between the
ISP and the home?
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
It doesn't need to; that's just a flaw in current implementations.
I see little reason why the main home gateway can't
On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:13:05 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Actually, they probably would have stuck to a 64 bit address space and
it was debated. Then it came down to, let's make it a 64 bit network
space, and give another 64 bits for hosts (96 bits probably would have
2009 15:58:16
To: Joe Grecojgr...@ns.sol.net
Cc: nanog listnanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Tue, 05 May 2009 09:13:06 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
No, it's not too late to make simple changes. We're still figuring out
lots of bits about it.
Yes
The potential problem is segmentation. Start assigning meanings to
chunks of bits, like routing info or even customer type (mobile,
static, etc) or geography, and the bits can get used up pretty
quickly. Or put another way the address space becomes sparsely
populated but inflexible.
I know,
other decisions have since been
made that rely on /64s.
So, half-assed or not - this is the protocol we have, and it works today ... So
what is the operational debate?
/TJ
--Original Message--
From: Ricky Beam
To: Jack Bates
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Ricky Beam wrote:
Ah, but they half-assed the solution. IPv6 makes no distinction between
network and host (eg. classless), yet SLAAC forces this oddball,
classful boundry. Routing doesn't care. Even the hosts don't care.
Only the tiny craplet of autoconfig demands the network and host
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:39:23AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Wow, that's a metaphor that has been not merely mixed, but shaken and
stirred as well. Are you for a move to IPv6 now or not? Is the Pinto
IPv4 or IPv6? What does the exploding gas tank represent?
I'm complaining that
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On the other hand - we have DHCPv6 to work around it. Noone HAS to use
SLAAC. ...
Yes, but as long as it exists, someone *will*.
Actually everyone does. The same formula is used for the link local
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 22:43 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
I'm complaining that the IPv6 we're all being asked to use is a buggy
contraption that's best parked until more of it's issues are resolved.
Using it is the fastest way to get issues resolved. It worked for
IPv4... :-)
Expecting all the
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then
what about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the
router behind that?
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57)
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Honest question - what's the difference?
Gruesse, Carsten
Gruesse, K.
--
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Honest question - what's the difference?
Because more is more, and
You have RFC3041 and similar techniques, stateless autoconfig, and a
variety of other general things that make it really awful for the default
ethernet network size to be something besides a /64.
...
I would definitely prefer to see a /56, or maybe a /48, handed out
today.
When I first
Bill Stewart wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead, so not only was
autoconfiguration much uglier, but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you
were going to subnet.
It's supposed to be a /48 per customer, on the assumption that 16 bits
of subnet information is
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anybody thought it was a
Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 16:36:16
To: Bill Stewartnonobvi...@gmail.com
Cc: north American Noise and Off-topic Gripesna...@merit.edu; Joe
Grecojgr...@ns.sol.net
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Bill Stewart wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64
Ricky Beam wrote:
64bit MAC -- which pretty much exists nowhere. It's a repeat of the
mistakes from IPv4's early days: CLASSFUL ROUTING.
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy with
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does anybody know why anybody thought
Joe Greco wrote:
But what we're talking about is service providers delegating to customers.
Customers should *also* be allowed to subnet however they want.
Something they can't do right now, because they aren't given the space.
If service providers are allowed to delegate teeny prefixes
On Mon, 04 May 2009 18:01:32 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Given there is no CLASS, but just a separation of network and host, I'd
hate to compare it to classful routing. They probably would have been
happy with a /96 network except for stateless autoconfig, which is quite
Louis,
may be a provider independent network is what you are looking for. This
is an end-user block of IP addresses moving with you from one ISP to
another, also can be multihomed to several ISPs together.
Our company helps to obtain such networks and autonomous system numbers,
from /24 (256 IPs
In a message written on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 06:38:13PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
So far, Cisco's gear is the only IPv6 routers I've messed with. And they
will not let you set an interface to anything smaller than a /64.
Loopbacks have slightly different rules, but in my case (IPv6
On Mon, 04 May 2009 22:29:29 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
EUI-64 is required for autoconfig...
On paper :-) There's no technological reason why the 48bit MAC wouldn't
be enough on it's own. Tacking on an extra (fixed) 16bit value doesn't
make it any more unique. Doing so
On May 4, 2009, at 23:36, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
FireWire is the only significant user of EUI-64 addresses
Yesterday, it was.
You might want to read up about IEEE 802.15.4 and 6LoWPAN.
We are not joking when we talk about the next billion nodes on the
Internet.
For those who are worried
* Joel Jaeggli:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I hear this a lot, but how many linksys default channel 6 end users
really have more than one subnet, or even know what a subnet is?
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often then
you would think.
Isn't the traffic bridged, so that you don't have to route WINS and
other stuff? Then it's
On 4/05/2009, at 7:19 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router,
then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often
then
you would think.
Isn't the traffic bridged, so
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people chain
three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /60 and not a
/64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if someone puts
three devices behind the second?
This is
On 4/05/2009, at 8:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people
chain three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /
60 and not a /64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
Because it allows the home user to arrange their network however they
want, up to 16 subnets, without having to have any knowledge of how
things actually work.
I don't see how your idea of doing on-demand-/64 is any easier than
handing them 256 /64:s
On May 4, 2009, at 10:08, Nathan Ward wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
If the ISP sees (and has to hand out) the PD, some bean counter will
put a price tag on it (differential pricing).
If
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
Then tell RIR's to quit insisting that /56's have SWIP's. They can't
very well be dynamic in nature via PD if they are being SWIP'd.
I never heard of this requirement before, but I am not in the ARIN region.
There is no technical reason why you can't
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
It's short sighted and silly to design your service around handing out
/64s to people and then you have to redesign it when demand for multiple
subnets come around. Design it around /56 to begin with, and you will
have solved the problem for the future, not just for
Joe Maimon wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
One of the goals of providing larger address spaces was to reduce (and
hopefully eliminate) the need to burn forwarding table entries where
doing so isn't strictly necessary. When we forget this, it leads us
to the same sorts of disasters that we
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On May 4, 2009, at 10:08, Nathan Ward wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
If the ISP sees (and has to hand out) the PD, some bean counter will put
a price tag on it
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
What remains to be seen is what will happen when someone says hey, my
/32 is full, I need another one. Will it be:
a) Sure, here's another /32, have fun!
b) You didn't subnet very efficiently by current standards even though
it was encouraged in the
James Hess wrote:
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56 for
the average residential user; that's just excessive. Before wondering
about the capabilities of home routers.. one might wonder if there
will even be _home_ routers ?
I think you'd want to do a /60 so
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
My personal feeling is that 99% of home networks will use a single /64,
but we'll be giving out /60s and /56s to placate the 1% who are going to
jump up and down and shout at us about it because of some reason that
they feel makes it all unfair
My personal feeling is that 99% of home networks will use a single
/64, but we'll be giving out /60s and /56s to placate the 1% who are
going to jump up and down and shout at us about it because of some
reason that they feel makes it all unfair or that we're thinking like
ipv4 not ipv6 etc.
We *want* things like IPv6 stateless autoconfig to work. It's a great
idea. We *want* a protocol simple enough that we don't have to deal
with stateful DHCP, we *want* something that is hard to screw up.
You should be aware that this is by no means a universal viewpoint.
IPv6 stateless
We *want* things like IPv6 stateless autoconfig to work. It's a great
idea. We *want* a protocol simple enough that we don't have to deal
with stateful DHCP, we *want* something that is hard to screw up.
You should be aware that this is by no means a universal viewpoint.
Very few
with an internet IP address and point it to
internal IP address for customers to be able to reach it from the
internet. this is for testing and development purposes and will expect
several servers on Load-balancer. The 5 static IP addresses just won't
be enough.
Well, in the OLP product set you would
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Oh! You mean, like the way we piss away IPv4 addresses?
That's pretty much what I'm thinking of. I'm sure that, had their been a
NANOG at the time IPv4 was being rolled out, there would have been an
equivalent discussion, except substitute /8 for
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Oh! You mean, like the way we piss away IPv4 addresses?
That's pretty much what I'm thinking of. I'm sure that, had their been a
NANOG at the time IPv4 was being rolled out, there would have been an
equivalent discussion, except substitute /8
On 3/05/2009, at 7:53 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
James Hess wrote:
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56 for
the average residential user; that's just excessive. Before
wondering
about the capabilities of home routers.. one might wonder if there
will even be
...@swm.pp.se
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 07:42:21
To: Matthew Palmermpal...@hezmatt.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Handing out an IPv6 /56 to a DSL or cable customer should be handled much
the same way as giving them
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often then
you would think.
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Matthew Palmer wrote:
[1] Just because we've got a lot of it, doesn't mean we should be
pissing it
up against the wall unnecessarily. A motto for network engineers and
economists alike.
You can't be wasteful with something that you know is
Juniper DX with an internet IP address and point it to
internal IP address for customers to be able to reach it from the
internet. this is for testing and development purposes and will expect
several servers on Load-balancer. The 5 static IP addresses just won't
be enough.
Thanks in advance
Louis
balancing.
We must provide Juniper DX with an internet IP address and point it to
internal IP address for customers to be able to reach it from the
internet. this is for testing and development purposes and will expect
several servers on Load-balancer. The 5 static IP addresses just won't
LEdouard Louis wrote:
Optimum Online business only offer 5 static IP address.
Where can I buy a block of Internet IP address for Business? How much
does it cost?
Only five? Really? Our basic residential users get 18 quintillion
addresses, and business users get 65536 times that many. Tell
?
practically, you can not buy IP addresses. you can buy companies
who have the right to use IP addresses (hard), or you can go to
ARIN and justify your own right to use (not as hard, but then
you have to deal w/ your ISP accepting routes for them), -OR-
switch ISPs
Thanks all!
I will look into the various suggestions.
--Louis
-Original Message-
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
[mailto:bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 3:07 PM
To: LEdouard Louis
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
On Fri
In message 49fb4661.8090...@west.net, Jay Hennigan writes:
LEdouard Louis wrote:
Optimum Online business only offer 5 static IP address.
Where can I buy a block of Internet IP address for Business? How much
does it cost?
Only five? Really? Our basic residential users get 18
401 - 500 of 521 matches
Mail list logo
