> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Butler [mailto:ben.but...@c2internet.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:40 AM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> " see a potential result of huge swathes of v4 resources reusable by
> these
Ben Butler wrote:
If we, as a community of operators are going to get on and deploy IPv6 and we
agree it's a migration the lets get doing and set some targets dates / BCP for
when it is reasonably expected that net/sys admins will have completed the
rollout and by whatever contractual or c
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
--
BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal;
TEXT-DECOR
Matthew Petach wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
"look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addres
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>>> So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
>>> "look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
>>> v4 addresses, it's
Step 1:
On 21/10/10 18:34 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
ROFL, Comcast is already telling their residential customers that if they want
a static
IPv4 address it will cost them an extra ~$60/month.
(Delta between residential and business: ~$55/month, single static IPv4 address
on business circuit:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>> So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
>> "look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
>> v4 addresses, it's going to cost an extra $50/month." ??
>>
>> Matt
>
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 09:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
>>> after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the
>> public
>>> internet space that cannot obtain v4 add
On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Dan White wrote:
>
>>> Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
>>
>> I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
>> start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
>
> When do you think that will happen and i
across the bridge and need to straddle both sides of the river.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Ben
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: 21 October 2010 16:30
> To: Ben Butler
> Cc: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; Owen DeLong; NANOG
> S
roxy / nat
> gateway between the two.
>
> Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
>
> Ben
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patr...@zill.net]
> Sent: 21 October 2010 15:59
> To: Owen DeLong; NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 11:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>> Are IPv6 connected machines unable to access IPv4 addresses?
>>
>> Unless you put a application/protocol translation in the middle IPv6
>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: Ben Butler; NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, George Bonser
> wrote:
> > The first step will be a registrar saying "after this date, w
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
"look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addresses, it's going to cost an extra $50/month." ??
Matt
Either the telephone company or the cable company. Probably both. Gi
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> The first step will be a registrar saying "after this date, we will no
> longer issue any IPv4 addresses for whatever reason" and at the same
> time, getting very aggressive in reclaiming space from dead entities,
> hijackers, etc. As time
> From: Ben Butler
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:18 AM
> To: 'Marshall Eubanks'
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> Hi,
>
> What is the consequence of not managing to transition the v4 network
> and having to mainta
On 10/21/2010 09:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
>> after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the
> public
>> internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and will be reachable
>> via v6
>> only ...
> Yep, y
> From: Dan White
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:30 AM
> To: Ben Butler
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
>
> I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
> start seeing v6-only hosts start popping u
On 21/10/10 14:53 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your
target populations to matter?
From an ac
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:12 AM
> To: Jens Link
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Jens Link wrote:
>
> > Owen DeLong writes:
>
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 11:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>> Are IPv6 connected machines unable to access IPv4 addresses?
>>
>> Unless you put a application/protocol translation in the middle IPv6
>
e the two simply not inter-communicable?
>
> Ben
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patr...@zill.net]
> Sent: 21 October 2010 15:59
> To: Owen DeLong; NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLo
Sent: 21 October 2010 18:09
To: Ben Butler
Cc: 'Dan White'; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Ben Butler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can live with running dual stack for a number of years as long as IPv4 has
> a turn off date, much
al Message-
> From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: 21 October 2010 16:30
> To: Ben Butler
> Cc: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; Owen DeLong; NANOG
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
.
My 2c.
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: 21 October 2010 16:30
To: Ben Butler
Cc: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; Owen DeLong; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Showing my
On 21 Oct 2010 10:07, Ben Butler wrote:
> Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
> given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
> presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able in
> v4 land, then v4 and v6, th
On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able
in v4 land, then v4 and v6, the
On 10/21/2010 11:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>> Are IPv6 connected machines unable to access IPv4 addresses?
>
> Unless you put a application/protocol translation in the middle IPv6
> can't talk to IPv4. yahoo("IVI","Ecdysis NAT64") for two possibi
On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
>>> impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
>>> their existing allocation of a /24 of IPv4 addresses includ
: 21 October 2010 15:59
To: Owen DeLong; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
>> impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
>&
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
>> impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
>> their existing allocation of a /24 of IPv4 addresses included.
>
> All well and good until some of their custome
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Jens Link wrote:
> Owen DeLong writes:
>
>> All well and good until some of their customers are on IPv6...
>> Then what?
>
> Someone will build an appliance to deal with this problem. ;-)
>
And I estimate that the user experience through such appliances will
be p
Owen DeLong writes:
> All well and good until some of their customers are on IPv6...
> Then what?
Someone will build an appliance to deal with this problem. ;-)
Jens
--
-
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany|
On 2010-10-20 22:19, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> (And the spammers will take the rest...)
>>
>> I am afraid so too.
>>
>>> (PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselves"IPv6
>>> Pioneers" as they recently did somethin
On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:36 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 7:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
>>
>> http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
>> (And the spammers will take the rest...)
>>
>> So, if your company is no
On 10/18/2010 7:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
>
> http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
> (And the spammers will take the rest...)
>
> So, if your company is not doing IPv6 yet, you really are really getting
> late now.
>
A
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:19:43PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> > Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >> (And the spammers will take the rest...)
> >
> > I am afraid so too.
> >
> >> (PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselves"IPv6
> >> Pioneers"
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> (And the spammers will take the rest...)
>
> I am afraid so too.
>
>> (PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselves"IPv6
>> Pioneers" as they recently did something with IPv6, if you didn't play
>> in the 6bone/
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselves"IPv6
Pioneers" as they recently did something with IPv6, if you didn't play
in the 6bone/early-RIR allocs you are not a pioneer as you are 10 years
la
On 20 October 2010 01:16, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply drop packets with a source
> address of .0 or .255 coming from the legacy class C space,
I did say in 83.x, but it's good to know that there are problems with
old Class-C addresses. It pains me to type
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 11:18 +1100, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply drop packets with a
> source
> address of .0 or .255 coming from the legacy class C space, this hit
> us
> with some Win 2k3 servers that for a bunch of stupid reasons needed to
> be connected to
On 10/19/10 9:24 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:24:02 +0200
> Jens Link wrote:
>
>> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
>>
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
>>>
>>> Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by
>>> a
>>> refere
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:24:02 +0200
Jens Link wrote:
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
>
> >> You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
> >
> > Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by
> > a
> > reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:41:09 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
> > >
> > You are confusing SI with Packet Filters. The technologies are
> > different
> > and it is, also, important to understand this distinction as well.
>
> I don't think I am "confusing" the two. I am saying that I have seen
> peop
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
> Zaid Ali wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>>
>> > Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
>> > of being overloaded.
>>
>> And what a wonderful problem to h
On 20/10/10 01:52, Matthew Walster wrote:
> No, and neither can anyone else... What's more is that they'll not use
> .0, .255, .1 (because apparently only routers are supposed to use
> that), .254 (who knows...)
There's actually a good reason for that.
MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> > Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
> > of being overloaded.
>
> And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
> of IPv6 growth s
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>> Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
>> of being overloaded.
>
> And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
> of IPv6 growth so you can ju
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
> Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
> of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
of IPv6 growth so you can justify him/her to sign off on IPv6 expenses. A
CFO will ne
In message , Zaid Ali writes:
>
> On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
> >
> > So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
> > So stick in a IPv6->IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
> > load balancer.
>
> Nah considering v6 traffic is small I have a simpler solut
On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
> So stick in a IPv6->IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
> load balancer.
Nah considering v6 traffic is small I have a simpler solution, I prefer to
set up a temporary web service
t; > if you are an ISP).
> >
> > If you do that, you will see migration to IPv6 is made much easier, and muc
> h
> > faster.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Owen DeLong"
> > To: "Franck Martin"
> > Cc: "
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
>> You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
>
> Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
> reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
Don't get me wrong. I like the idea. Especially after the discussion I
On 10/19/2010 10:15 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
> I would say for most of our customers, especially in the hosting space, a
> "class C" is a /24, they just don't know networking at all and build their
> hosting lans using /24s for each vlan.
>
> Very few of the requests that we get are submitted u
On 10/19/2010 2:27 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
If you run Cisco ACE load balancers and start with your web server farm I
can assure you that you will be stuck because ACE loaad balancers do not
That's not the only product with issues. As previously discussed on
list, there's also issues with DR suppor
ch easier, and much
> faster.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: "Jonas Frey (Probe Networks)" , "Jeffrey Lyon"
> , "NANOG list"
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:55:56 PM
&
services.
> If you do that, you will see migration to IPv6 is made much easier, and much
> faster.
>
Hasn't been my experience doing a number of IPv6 migrations.
Owen
> - Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Franck Martin"
>
frey Lyon"
, "NANOG list"
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:55:56 PM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Servers work just fine over tunnels if necessary too.
Get your public-facing content and services on IPv6 as fast as possible.
Make IPv6 available to your cust
---
From: Matthew Walster [mailto:matt...@walster.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:53 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 19 October 2010 14:12, wrote:
> Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
> reference to 213/8 because i
On 19 October 2010 14:12, wrote:
> Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
> reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
I've met people who just assume anything with a 24-bit netmask is a
Class C network. For instance:
"Can I have another Class C out
> Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
> reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
Or spots an address which uses letters and colons and looks
syntactically incorrect to them?
Do you really want untrained people working on your network?
--
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:10 +0200, Jens Link said:
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
>
> > Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
> > who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
>
> You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* wa
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
> Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
> who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
SCNR
Jens
--
---
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jonas Frey (Probe Networks)"
> To: "Jeffrey Lyon"
> Cc: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 5:03:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> How do you want to do that without IPv6 connectivity? :-)
>
>
> -Jonas
>
IPv6 isn't going to make class-based routing obsolete... is it?
*ducks*
cheers!
Andrew
Of course not. My users are already asking for some Class G networks
(/56) to use.
On 10/18/2010 5:46 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:52:18 PDT, George Bonser said:
> Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
> who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
>
IPv6 isn't going to make class-based routing obsolete... is
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:52:18 PDT, George Bonser said:
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> > The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6. It works
> > just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
>
> Exactly true but there are people out there who experi
Wouldn't it be better to leave such labels and judgements to future
generations? I'm sure they'll be the best judge of who led them to paradise
/ruin.
-dorian
- Original Message -
> From: "Joel Jaeggli"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
> On 10/18/10 1:38 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> > I'
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:41:36 +0200, Jens Link said:
> Jeroen Massar writes:
>
> > So, if your company is not doing IPv6 yet, you really are really getting
> > late now.
>
> They won't listen.
Consider it evolution in action.
:)
pgpBYy5yKbRFN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
were left to tackle.
>
> People before that were Mavericks!
>
> - Original Message - From: "Aleksi Suhonen"
> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 19 October,
> 2010 3:07:32 AM Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> Hello,
>
> ML wrote:
>> IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
>
> I'm afraid I'm still doing it before it's cool. )-;
>
>
c: "NANOG list"
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 5:03:06 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
How do you want to do that without IPv6 connectivity? :-)
-Jonas
started to realize all
the issues that were left to tackle.
People before that were Mavericks!
- Original Message -
From: "Aleksi Suhonen"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 3:07:32 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Hello,
ML wrote:
>
On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Johnny Eriksson wrote:
> "Tony Hain" wrote:
>
>> Actually nat does something for security, it decimates it. Any 'real'
>> security system (physical, technology, ...) includes some form of audit
>> trail. NAT explicitly breaks any form of audit trail, unless you are
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Owen DeLong [2010-10-18 18:29]:
>> The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6.
>
> that is right.
>
>> It works just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
>
> that is partially true. it can work just fin
> >
> You are confusing SI with Packet Filters. The technologies are
> different
> and it is, also, important to understand this distinction as well.
I don't think I am "confusing" the two. I am saying that I have seen
people use them and think they are secure when they aren't. IPv6 is
going to
On 10/18/2010 11:19, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Owen DeLong [2010-10-18 18:29]:
>> The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6.
>
> that is right.
>
>> It works just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
>
> that is partially true. it can work just fine, but all
"Tony Hain" wrote:
> Actually nat does something for security, it decimates it. Any 'real'
> security system (physical, technology, ...) includes some form of audit
> trail. NAT explicitly breaks any form of audit trail, unless you are the one
> operating the header mangling device. Given that th
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:52 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:25 AM
>> To: George Bonser
>> Cc: Henning Brauer; nanog@nanog.org
>> Subj
* Owen DeLong [2010-10-18 18:29]:
> The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6.
that is right.
> It works just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
that is partially true. it can work just fine, but all the bloat in v6
makes it way harder to implement the stat
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:25 AM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: Henning Brauer; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
>
>
> Nobody is using dynamic nat pool
hen you will be able to ask all the right questions and apply the right
> >>> pressure to your vendors, carriers, etc....
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Jeffrey Lyon"
> >>> To: "Jens Link"
> >
Owen DeLong wrote:
> ...
>
> It's really unfortunate that most people don't understand the
> distinction.
> If they did, it would help them to realize that NAT doesn't actually do
> anything for security, it just helps with address conservation
> (although
> it has some limits there, as well).
Ac
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:47 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Henning Brauer
>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:36 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>>
>> instead of w
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:18:57 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
> > On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
> >> > And +1 on the "pioneers" comment too.
> >>>
> >>> Paul.
> >>>
> >>
> >> IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
I'm wondering how long it'll be until HE starts spamming their IPv6 service...
Tim Burke
(815) 556-2000
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:44, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
>
> http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
> (And
On 10/18/10 8:35 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Owen DeLong [2010-10-18 17:27]:
>> Have you done IPv6?
>> I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
>
> maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
> again). from an implementors (I have
> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Brauer
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:36 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>
> instead of working on a viable alternative that doesn't suck.
> Which is certainly possible.
I
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Owen DeLong [2010-10-18 17:27]:
>> Have you done IPv6?
>> I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
>
> maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
> again). from an implemento
Owen,
He did not display the return values of these functions.
I think his IPv6 one returns FALSE;
- Jared
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the "pioneers" comment too.
* Owen DeLong [2010-10-18 17:27]:
> Have you done IPv6?
> I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
again). from an implementors (I have written a lot of kernel-side
networking code and netw
If you aren't telling your existing vendors that you need IPv6 now, you
need to be. If your vendors aren't getting the message, it's well past
time to take action and start looking for other vendors.
Owen
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:15 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I'll listen, but I need my vendors, carr
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
>> > And +1 on the "pioneers" comment too.
>>>
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>
>> IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
>>
>>
>>
> IPV4 ->easy();
> IPV6->really().Really().Difficult();
>
Have you done IPv6?
I hav
Uh that would be 12 left -- 7 general distribution and 5 reserved for the
global end allocation policy.
That's 5%, not 5 /8s.
Owen
On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
>
> http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-
Hello,
ML wrote:
> IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
I'm afraid I'm still doing it before it's cool. )-;
--
Aleksi Suhonen
() ascii ribbon campaign
/\ support plain text e-mail
On 10/18/10 5:16 AM, ML wrote:
> > And +1 on the "pioneers" comment too.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>
> IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
Late to the party...
The hipsters have already moved on having grown bored with their v6
deployments around 2004.
>
>
rs for later...
>>>
>>> Then you will be able to ask all the right questions and apply the right
>>> pressure to your vendors, carriers, etc
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Jeffrey Lyon"
>>> To: "Je
age -
>> From: "Jeffrey Lyon"
>> To: "Jens Link"
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
>>
>> I'll listen, but I need my vendors, carriers, etc. to all
t questions and apply the right
> pressure to your vendors, carriers, etc
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeffrey Lyon"
> To: "Jens Link"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 re
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
