1, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
Owen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 e
Aug 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> Owen wrote:
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
>>>> To: William Herrin
>>
On 8/11/2011 1:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
Owen wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
On 8/11/2011 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm
talking about
the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gatew
> And why do you think the fridge manufacturers will get it right in
> cheaply-made consumer-grade products, when it's not being done right in
> muh pricier automated self-check-out checkstands? I avoid self-check-out
> checkstands because they fail in one way or another so damnably often.
> My las
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:49:03PM -0430, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> > What standards? The RFID tag on the milk carton will, essentially, replace
> > the bar code once RFID tags become cheap enough. It'll be like an
> > uber-barcode with a bunch more information.
> >
> > For keeping track of how much
On 12/08/2011, at 7:23 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> The question I asked you is why should I as the service provider deploy
> routers rather than bridges as CPE gear for residential customers.
As a service provider, you don't want to burn an expensive TCAM slot to make
IPv6 ND work for every devic
On Aug 11, 2011 5:25 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allo
On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
>>> will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I respectfully disagree. If appliance manufacturers jump on the bandwagon to
>> make their device *Internet Ready!* we'll see appliance makers who have way
>> less networking experience than Linksys/Cisco getting into the fray. I
>> highly
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm
>> talking about
>> the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways
>> that residential
>> end u
Eugen,
On 2011-08-11 21:53, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:52:10PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Well, we know that the human population will stabilise somewhere below
>> ten billion by around 2050. The current unicast space provides for about
>
> How about the machine po
On 8/11/2011 5:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm
talking about
the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways
that residential
end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The qu
>
> I respectfully disagree. If appliance manufacturers jump on the bandwagon to
> make their device *Internet Ready!* we'll see appliance makers who have way
> less networking experience than Linksys/Cisco getting into the fray. I highly
> doubt the pontifications of these Good Morning America
You're talking about the front end residential gateway that you manage. I'm
talking about
the various gateways and things you might not yet expect to provide gateways
that residential
end users will deploy on their own within their environments.
The fact that you are talking about an entirely di
Owen,
The fact that you're immediately going to routing means you don't
understand the problem. The costs I'm talking about don't have anything
to do with routing or any of the core gear and everything to do with the
pieces at the customer premise. Routers cost more to purchase than
bri
On 08/11/2011 11:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:41 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
And your average home user, whose WiFi network is an open network named
"linksys" is going to do that how?
Because the routers that come on pantries and refrigerators will probably b
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
> >>> To: William Herrin
> >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> >>> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 10
On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:41 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> And your average home user, whose WiFi network is an open network named
>>> "linksys" is going to do that how?
>>
>> Because the routers that come on pantries and refrigerators will probably be
>> made by people smarter than the folks at
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said:
> Because the routers that come on pantries and refrigerators will probably be
> made by people smarter than the folks at Linksys?
That's highly doubtful, especially when Linksys is the "best" networking
equipment the average person will buy (at Best Buy, Wal-M
M
>>> To: William Herrin
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Owen DeLong
>> wro
> > And your average home user, whose WiFi network is an open network named
> > "linksys" is going to do that how?
>
> Because the routers that come on pantries and refrigerators will probably be
> made by people smarter than the folks at Linksys?
One could argue that routing and access control i
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> Owen wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
>> To: William Herrin
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: IPv
o: Cameron Byrne
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
On 11/08/2011, at 12:30 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Finally a useful post in this thread. Good work on the deployment of real
ipv6!
>
Thanks. And thanks to Vendor-C for helping us through it. The IPv6
Broadband
featureset on
Owen wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:58 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:46 PM, William Herrin w
On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2011-08-11 12:45, james machado wrote:
>>
>>> what is the life expectancy of IPv6? It won't live forever and we
>>> can't reasonably expect it too. I understand we don't want ru
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:52:10PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Well, we know that the human population will stabilise somewhere below
> ten billion by around 2050. The current unicast space provides for about
How about the machine population? How about self-replicating systems?
How about ge
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> I mean really, why
> wouldn't the life safety system in a car dynamically acquire its
> globally-addressable IPv6 addresses from the customer's cheap home
> Internet equipment? So they'll each need their /64's which means the
> car as a whole n
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-08-11 12:45, james machado wrote:
>
>> what is the life expectancy of IPv6? It won't live forever and we
>> can't reasonably expect it too. I understand we don't want run out of
>> addresses in the next 10-40 years but what about
On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes and no. In terms of potential innovations, if enough of the market chooses
> /60, they will hard code the assumption that they cannot count on more than
> a /60 being available into their development process regardless of what
> gets into the ro
On 8/10/2011 8:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Someday, I expect the pantry to have a barcode reader on it connected back
a computer setup for the kitchen someday. Most of us already use barcode
readers when we shop so its not a big step to home
On 11/08/2011, at 12:41 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 11/08/2011, at 12:30 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> Finally a useful post in this thread. Good work on the deployment of real
>> ipv6!
>>
>
> Thanks. And thanks to Vendor-C for helping us through it. The IPv6 Broadband
> featureset on the A
On 11/08/2011, at 12:30 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Finally a useful post in this thread. Good work on the deployment of real
> ipv6!
>
Thanks. And thanks to Vendor-C for helping us through it. The IPv6 Broadband
featureset on the ASR platform starting from IOS-XR 3.1 is a vast improvement
on
On Aug 10, 2011 7:45 PM, "Mark Newton" wrote:
>
>
> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
> > will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet deployment
> > towards liberal enough allocations to avoid
On 11/08/2011, at 12:04 PM, Philip Dorr wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I'm glad I live in Owen's world and not Bill's. I think my appliance vendors
>> will make much cooler and more useful products than yours.
>
> In Owen's world the fridge and pantry would
On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
> will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet deployment
> towards liberal enough allocations to avoid such disability for the
> future.
I see the lack of agree
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I'm glad I live in Owen's world and not Bill's. I think my appliance vendors
> will make much cooler and more useful products than yours.
In Owen's world the fridge and pantry would know what they have, the
amounts, and possibly location. Th
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> That said, /48 to the home should be what is happening, and /56 is
>>> a better compromise than anything smaller.
>>
>> You don't
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Someday, I expect the pantry to have a barcode reader on it connected back
>>> a computer setup for the kitchen someday. Most of us already use barcode
>>> readers when we shop so its no
>
> I don't have to use my imagination to think of ways that additional
> bits on the network address side would have been advantageous -- all I
> need is my memory. In the 90s, it was suggested that a growing number
> of dual-homed networks cluttering the DFZ could be handled more
> efficiently
On 2011-08-11 12:45, james machado wrote:
> what is the life expectancy of IPv6? It won't live forever and we
> can't reasonably expect it too. I understand we don't want run out of
> addresses in the next 10-40 years but what about 100? 200? 300?
>
> We will run out and our decedents will go t
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Someday, I expect the pantry to have a barcode reader on it connected back
>> a computer setup for the kitchen someday. Most of us already use barcode
>> readers when we shop so its not a big step to home use.
>
> Nah... That's short-term thi
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That said, /48 to the home should be what is happening, and /56 is
>> a better compromise than anything smaller.
>
> You don't really imagine that end-users will require
> more than 2^8 s
>
> Someday, I expect the pantry to have a barcode reader on it connected back
> a computer setup for the kitchen someday. Most of us already use barcode
> readers when we shop so its not a big step to home use.
>
Nah... That's short-term thinking. The future holds advanced pantries with
RFID s
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> No. A typical user has 10 to 20 addresses NAT'd to one public address.
I'd say this is fair. Amazingly enough, it all basically works right
with one IP address today. It will certainly be nice to have the
option to give all these devices p
In message
, james machado writes:
> > It isn't hard to do some arithmetic and guess that if every household
> > in the world had IPv6 connectivity from a relatively low-density
> > service like the above example, we would still only burn through about
> > 3% of the IPv6 address space on end-user
> It isn't hard to do some arithmetic and guess that if every household
> in the world had IPv6 connectivity from a relatively low-density
> service like the above example, we would still only burn through about
> 3% of the IPv6 address space on end-users (nothing said about server
> farms, etc. he
In message
, Jeff Wheeler writes:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Is it true that there is no existing work on this? =A0If that is the
> >> case, why would we not try to steer any such future work in such a way
> >> that it can manage to do what the end-user wants with
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Is it true that there is no existing work on this? If that is the
>> case, why would we not try to steer any such future work in such a way
>> that it can manage to do what the end-user wants without requiring a
>> /48 in their home?
>
> No,
On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That said, /48 to the home should be what is happening, and /56 is
>> a better compromise than anything smaller.
>
> Is hierarchical routing within the SOHO network the reason you believe
There is some deployable technology that allows some aspects of this today.
Yes, it's in its infancy. Small prefix limitations will guarantee it never sees
the
light of day just as NAT precluded many useful innovations from getting
deployed.
Layer 3 isolation is only isolation by agreement if th
Tim,
Hence the "might". I worry when people start throwing around terms
like routing in the home that they don't understand the complexities of
balancing the massive CPE installed base, technical features, end user
support, ease of installation & managemenet, and (perhaps most
importantl
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> That said, /48 to the home should be what is happening, and /56 is
> a better compromise than anything smaller.
Is hierarchical routing within the SOHO network the reason you believe
/48 is useful? You don't really imagine that end-users will
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Alexander Harrowell
wrote:
> Thinking about the CPE thread, isn't this a case for bridging as a
> feature in end-user devices? If Joe's media-centre box etc would bridge
> its downstream ports to the upstream port, the devices on them could
> just get an address, w
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-08-10 15:02 , Owen DeLong wrote:
> [..]
>> Why do I want my appliance network's multicast packets getting tossed
>> around on the guest wireless?
>
> Even wikipedia knows the answer to that:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGMP_snooping
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
> Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable
> technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously
> doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable
> than attempting
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have
deployable technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I
very seriously doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier
and more reliable than attempting it at layer 3 which is isolation by
agreement, i.e. i
On Wednesday 10 Aug 2011 14:57:54 Jeroen Massar wrote:
> PS: the more power to your kids if they can sniff the network for your
> 'adult content', decode it, and then actually watch it
Indeed; I'd be more interested in making sure that, say, you can
efficiently multicast the live footy to two di
On 2011-08-10 15:02 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
> Why do I want my appliance network's multicast packets getting tossed
> around on the guest wireless?
Even wikipedia knows the answer to that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGMP_snooping
which is the first hit for IGMP snooping, which is generally a f
>
> Thinking about the CPE thread, isn't this a case for bridging as a
> feature in end-user devices? If Joe's media-centre box etc would bridge
> its downstream ports to the upstream port, the devices on them could
> just get an address, whether by DHCPv6 from the CPE router's delegation
> or
On Monday 08 Aug 2011 22:00:52 Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> >>
> >>> - Home users - they usually don't know what is su
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:24:03 +1200, Jonathon Exley said:
> Silly confidentiality notices are usually enforced by silly corporate IT
> departments and cannot be removed by mere mortal employees.
> They are an unavoidable part of life, like Outlook top posting and spam.
They may all three be things
Once upon a time, Jimmy Hess said:
> If you must not have someone plugging into your server LAN without
> permission, you
> turn unused ports off, or preferably, place them in a VLAN island with
> no topological
> connection to anything.
That's about what I do; unused ports are in a different VLA
> Silly confidentiality notices are usually enforced by silly corporate
> IT departments and cannot be removed by mere mortal employees.
> They are an unavoidable part of life, like Outlook top posting and
> spam.
Alternatively, if your corporate email imposes stupid policies and / or a
stupid em
It's at least true of how some of the Cisco platforms cope with IPv6 access
lists.
Owen
On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:54 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there will be platforms that end up on both sides of this question.
>
> I know of no asic
On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I'm sure there will be platforms that end up on both sides of this question.
I know of no asic in a switch that claims to support ipv6 that does it this
way... That would tend to place you at a competitive disadvantage to
broadcom/marvell/fulcru
> When I send someone on site to do work for me, I don't want to have to
> prepare excessive instructions on how to connect their laptop to the
> local LAN. I want to say, "This switch, this port" and then move on to
> the actual work I sent them there to do.
when i am allowed, i put up open wirel
> -Original Message-
> From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 August 2011 2:30 PM
> To: Chris Adams; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>
> When I send someone on site to do work for me, I don't want to have to
> p
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Even on a server lan you'll occasionally want to plug in a PC for
>> diagnostics without having to poke in an IP address by hand.
> Actually, nobody should be plugging any random device into my server
> LANs, and I certainly don't want to enco
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
>> Even on a server lan you'll occasionally want to plug in a PC for
>> diagnostics without having to poke in an IP address by hand.
>
> Actually, nobody should be plugging any random device into my serve
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> Stateless autoconfiguration (which is NOT dynamic IP addresses; the IP
> address is static but tied to the ethernet card) does not work unless
> the subnet mask is exactly /64.
>
> Even on a server lan you'll occasionally want to plug in a PC for
> diagnos
On Aug 8, 6:24 pm, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> Silly confidentiality notices are usually enforced by silly
> corporate IT departments
Oh, no, it's the *legal* department (or maybe HR) that is to blame. I
actually had a guardhouse lawyer kick and scream about us not putting
disclaimers on our emails
Hi Brian,
>From someone who's actually done this.
- Our customer base is primarily PPP connected broadband users (variety of
technologies, mostly ADSL).
- We do a DYNAMIC /64 on the PPP interface so that people who terminate
directly on a PC can get IPv6 without DHCPv6 PD.
- In addition for the
I'm sure there will be platforms that end up on both sides of this question.
YES: We made a less expensive box by cutting the width of the TCAM required in
half.
NO: We spared no expense and passed the costs (and a nice profit margin) on to
you so
that you can do whatever you like in IP
On Aug 8, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> we assign /112 per "end user vlan (or server)" at this moment... works
> perfectly fine (and thats even "a bit too big").
>
Sigh… Too big for what?
> - nobody wants to use dynamic ips on -servers- or -router links- anyway
>
True… Guess
I heard at one time that hardware manufacturers were likely to route in
hardware only down to a /64, and that any smaller subnets would be subject to
the "slow path" as ASICs were being designed with 64-bit address tables. I have
no idea of the validity of that claim. Does anyone have any concr
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> we assign /112 per "end user vlan (or server)" at this moment... works
> perfectly fine (and thats even "a bit too big").
>
> - nobody wants to use dynamic ips on -servers- or -router links- anyway
>
> i -really- can't see why people don'
: Tuesday, 9 August 2011 8:26 a.m.
To: Jonathon Exley
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
[snip]
P.S. Jonathon: If anything in your email was confidential, too bad. You posted
it to a public list. Silly notice at the
bottom to that effect removed.
This email and attachments
we assign /112 per "end user vlan (or server)" at this moment... works
perfectly fine (and thats even "a bit too big").
- nobody wants to use dynamic ips on -servers- or -router links- anyway
i -really- can't see why people don't just use subnets with just the
required number of addresses.
t
On Aug 8, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
>>
>>> - Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
>>> different subnets in their SOHO router can be dif
On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:43 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
>
>> - Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
>> different subnets in their SOHO router can be difficult. Usually the
>> simple 1 subnet for every devic
On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:15 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Brian Mengel wrote:
>
>> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
>> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
>> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates,
On Aug 7, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> So you want HE to force all their clients to renumber.
>
> No. I am simply pointing out that Owen exaggerated when he stated
> that he implements the following three practices together on h
On Aug 7, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
> everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
> All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48
> sites. Sure that's still 655
On Aug 7, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Well, you aren't actually doing this on your network today. If you
>>> practiced what you are preaching, you would not be carrying aggregate
>>> routes to your tunnel broker gateways across
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:12:00 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> You don't have to count the all
> 0 and all
> 1 as reserved maybe each deeice can see /57 or /58 or /59
> depending of capabilities your devices
As I said further down the note - you
In message <174561.1312807...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
> --==_Exmh_1312807411_38980P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
>
> > - Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
- Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
different subnets in their SOHO router can be difficult. Usually the
simple 1 subnet for every device is enough for the
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> - Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
> different subnets in their SOHO router can be difficult. Usually the
> simple 1 subnet for every device is enough for them. Separating some
> devices into a separate su
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Brian Mengel wrote:
In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
slightly preferred.
I am most curious as to why a
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Jonathon Exley
wrote:
> This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
> everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
> All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48
> sites. Sure that's still
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 09:45:31PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:47:48 EDT, Randy Carpenter said:
> > Does AT&T seriously serve the entire state of Indiana from a single POP???
> > Sounds crazy to me.
>
> It makes sense if they're managing to bill customers by the
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:47:48 EDT, Randy Carpenter said:
> Does AT&T seriously serve the entire state of Indiana from a single POP???
> Sounds crazy to me.
It makes sense if they're managing to bill customers by the cable mile from
their location to the POP. Imagine a POP in Terre Haute or Indiana
> >> AT&T serves some entire states out of a single POP, as far as
> >> layer-3
> >> termination is concerned.
> >>
> >
> > Are any of the states with populations larger than Philadelphia
> > among
> > them?
>
> Yes, for example, Indiana. Pretty much every state in the former
> Ameritech servic
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> So you want HE to force all their clients to renumber.
No. I am simply pointing out that Owen exaggerated when he stated
that he implements the following three practices together on his own
networks:
* hierarchical addressing
* nibble-aligned
In message
, Jeff Wheeler writes:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Well, you aren't actually doing this on your network today. =A0If you
> >> practiced what you are preaching, you would not be carrying aggregate
> >> routes to your tunnel broker gateways across your whol
Jonathon,
On Aug 7, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> This has probably been said before,
Once or twice :-)
> but it makes me uncomfortable to think of everybody in the world being given
> /48 subnets by default.
This isn't where the worry should be. Do the math. Right now, we're
a
On Aug 7, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Jonathon Exley wrote:
> This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
> everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
> All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48
> sites. Sure that's still 655
This has probably been said before, but it makes me uncomfortable to think of
everybody in the world being given /48 subnets by default.
All of a sudden that wide expanse of 2^128 IP addresses shrinks to 2^48 sites.
Sure that's still 65535 times more than 2^32 IPv4 addresses, but wouldn't it be
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
