On 1/11/11 11:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/11/2011 1:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Many of us are looking at things from today's
perspective. Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with
a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by
the IP address it
On 01/11/2011 01:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It's not about the number of devices. That's IPv4-think. It's about the number
of segments. I see a world where each home-entertainment cluster would
be a separate segment (today, few things use IP, but, future HE solutions
will include Monitors,
At 11:59 AM 1/12/2011, Jim postulated wrote:
On 01/11/2011 01:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It's not about the number of devices. That's IPv4-think. It's
about the number
of segments. I see a world where each home-entertainment cluster would
be a separate segment (today, few things use IP,
On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Ted Fischer wrote:
At 11:59 AM 1/12/2011, Jim postulated wrote:
On 01/11/2011 01:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It's not about the number of devices. That's IPv4-think. It's about the
number
of segments. I see a world where each home-entertainment cluster would
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
snip
There are multiple purposes to /48s to residential end users.
DHCP-PD allows a lot of future innovations not yet available.
Imagine a house where the border router receives a /48
from the ISP and delegates
From: Michael Loftis
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:46 AM
To: nanog
Subject: Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
Your average home user has no reason at all for anything more than a
PtP to his/her gateway, and a single prefix routed to that gateway.
There are most certainly
On 1/11/2011 1:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Many of us are looking at things from today's
perspective. Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with
a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by
the IP address it has.
Today, there are several vendors who
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
snip
There are multiple purposes to /48s to residential end users.
DHCP-PD allows a lot of future innovations not yet available.
Imagine a house where the border
-Original Message-
From: Deepak Jain [mailto:dee...@ai.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 2:01 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
Please, before you flame out, recognize I know a bit of what I am
talking about. You can verify this by doing a search on NANOG
*requested anonymous* wrote:
(I don't post on public mailing lists, so, please consider this
private.
That is, I don't care if the question/reply are public, just, not the
source.)
On 1/10/11 11:46 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
... yes I know you understand operational issues.
While managed
My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big
enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy. There is no shortage
of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage
of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a
/48? But,
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
If it's inappropriately placed in front of servers, where's there's no
state to inspect and were the stateful nature of the device in and of itself
forms a DoS vector, it has negative security value; i.e., it makes
On Jan 9, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
Why do you say there is zero state at the server, but the not at the client?
Because every incoming connection to the server is unsolicited - therefore,
there's no pre-existing state to evaluate.
On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Jima wrote:
On 1/7/2011 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are
generally
a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME circumstances
in which they are either not necessary or
Are there any large transit networks doing /64 on point-to-point
networks to BGP customers? Who are they? What steps have they taken
to eliminate problems, if any?
Our Global Crossing IPv6 transit is on a /64 Ethernet point-to-point.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
On 7 Jan 2011, at 06:11, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are
generally
a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME circumstances
in which they are either not necessary or insufficient.
As a draft, it hasn't been
On 1/6/2011 9:01 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Are there any large transit networks doing /64 on point-to-point
networks to BGP customers? Who are they?
Our Qwest and TW Telecom links are /64.
--
Devon
-- Original Message ---
From: Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
Sent: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:01:12 -0500
Are there any large transit networks doing /64 on point-to-point
networks to BGP customers? Who are they?
Add HE.net to the list.
-Randy
www.fastserv.com
From: Grant Phillips [mailto:grant.phill...@gwtp.id.au]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Deepak Jain
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
Hi Deepak,
I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the IPv6
world. Are we allowing history
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06820.html
Jima
Just skimming through the draft:
1) It is no longer recommended that /128s be given out. While there
may be some cases where assigning only a single address may be
justified, a site by
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Deepak Jain wrote:
least technical user base. (side note, if I were a residential ISP I'd
configure a /64 to my highly-controlled CPE router and issue /128s to
each and every device that plugged in on the customer site, and only one
per MAC and have a remotely configurable
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Question - Whatever happened to the concept of a customer
coming to their SP for more space? [E]very week we could
widen their subnet without causing any negative
impact on them?
Clever folks figured that making the customer
On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:
-- Original Message ---
From: Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
Sent: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:01:12 -0500
Are there any large transit networks doing /64 on point-to-point
networks to BGP customers? Who are they?
Add HE.net
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06820.html
Jima
Just skimming through the draft:
1) It is no longer recommended that /128s be given out. While there
may be some cases where assigning only a single
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Deepak Jain wrote:
There are now years of security dogma that says NAT is a good thing,
Actually, this isn't the case. There's some *security theater* dogma which
makes totally unsupported claims about the supposed security benefits of NAT,
but that's not quite
On Jan 8, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You say dogma, I say mythology.
Concur 100%.
Stateful inspection provides security.
To clarify, stateful inspection only provides security in a context where
there's state to inspect - i.e., at the southernmost end of access networks,
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
NAT has no inherent security benefits whatsoever.
Hi Roland,
With that statement, you paint with a remarkably broad brush. As you
know, folks use (or perhaps misuse) the term NAT to describe
everything from RFC 1631 to
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I presume you don't intend us to conclude that a bastion host firewall
provides no security benefit to the equipment it
protects.
If it's protecting workstations, yes, it has some positive security value - but
not due to NAT.
If it's
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I presume you don't intend us to conclude that a bastion
host firewall provides no security benefit to the equipment it
protects.
If it's protecting workstations, yes,
Please, before you flame out, recognize I know a bit of what I am talking
about. You can verify this by doing a search on NANOG archives. My point is to
actually engage in an operational discussion on this and not insult (or be
insulted).
While I understand the theoretical advantages of /64s
On 1/6/2011 4:00 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
In your enterprise, behind your firewall, whatever, where you want
autoconfig to work, and have some way of dealing with all of the dead
space, more power to you. But operationally, is*anything* gained
today by giving every host a /64 to screw around in
Hi Deepak,
I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the
IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm swaying more
to no.
Have you read this RFC? This is pretty satisfying in making me feel more
comfortable assigning out /48 and /64's. I can sleep
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
As far as I can tell, this crippling of the address space is completely
reversible, it's a reasonable step forward and the only operational loss is
you can't do all the address jumping and obfuscation people like to talk
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Wouldn't a number of problems go away if we just, for now, follow the IPv4
lessons/practices like allocating the number of addresses a customer needs ---
say /122s or /120s that current router architectures know how to handle --
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
It is advisable to look for much stronger reasons than With
IPv4 we did it or With IPv4 we ran into such and such
problem due to unique characteristics of IPv4 addressing
or other IPv4 conventions that had to continue to
On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
Please, before you flame out, recognize I know a bit of what I am talking
about. You can verify this by doing a search on NANOG archives. My point is
to actually engage in an operational discussion on this and not insult (or be
insulted).
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Wouldn't a number of problems go away if we just, for now, follow the
IPv4 lessons/practices like allocating the number of addresses a
customer needs --- say /122s or /120s that current router
architectures know how to handle --
On 1/6/2011 4:47 PM, Grant Phillips wrote:
I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the
IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm swaying more
to no.
Have you read this RFC? This is pretty satisfying in making me feel more
comfortable assigning
On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Jima wrote:
On 1/6/2011 4:47 PM, Grant Phillips wrote:
I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the
IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm swaying more
to no.
Have you read this RFC? This is pretty
On 1/7/2011 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are
generally
a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME circumstances
in which they are either not necessary or insufficient.
As a draft, it hasn't been through the
40 matches
Mail list logo
