On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 03:00:27 -0800, Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com wrote:
I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new
phrases, words, things to think about etc
You fears will significantly lower after you set up a separate lab and
play with it. With something as simple
Really -- just go play with it. I started by setting up a
tunnelbroker.net account at home.
A majority of the packet slapping functionality of routers work just
fine. It's when you get into things like applications, load balancing,
NAT64/DNS64 where things start to get a little buggy. And you'll
: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
-Mike
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates jba
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:43:35PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)
Welcome to the life of being a network operator. :)
That's called carrier grade these days by all those vendors! :-)
SCNR,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber:
As part of my role, I'm responsible, for a small (20 - 25 machine) network
in the UK.
When it comes to IPv6 I'm a complete noob. So ok - this is how I stand for
IPv6:
I get IPv4, I get NAT, I get why it's needed, and I get why it's evil.
I know my IPv4 network inside and out, how DHCP runs and
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
As part of my role, I'm responsible, for a small (20 - 25 machine) network
in the UK.
When it comes to IPv6 I'm a complete noob. So ok - this is how I stand for
IPv6:
I get IPv4, I get NAT, I get why it's needed, and I get why it's evil.
-
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
To: Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:03:01 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com wrote:
I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing
On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
my apps that are used to not having and therefore
- a noobs prespective
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com wrote:
I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which,
surprise
surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for
it.
I am however *terrified* of making that move
: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:30:55 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
-Mike
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Mike Lyon wrote:
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
I think these could be pretty valuable in
On 2/9/2011 12:30 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
You don't have to disable IPv6 on the servers, just don't put a
in dns. The simplest way to move forward is to get the entire path in
place without the key to knowing is there, then for a few test
subjects either provide a different dns response, or
On 9 feb 2011, at 19:30, Tony Hain wrote:
Making the mass change of enabling the servers at the point you expect
service to work is just asking for support calls...
Do that on june 8 like everyone else. :-)
http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
@nanog.org, Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:37:31 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com wrote:
I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surprise
surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
I am however
There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I will
be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s
On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I
will
be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.
Owen
In message aanlktimnwxkb0xz-okp44dxkvflhedwv8k3pex4ya...@mail.gmail.com, Will
iam Herrin writes:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby nano...@gmail.com wrote:
I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surpr=
ise
surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that
19 matches
Mail list logo
