On 11/1/10 9:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
Hi, almost everytime I open my laptop it gets a different ip address,
sometimes I'm home and it gets that sa
On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> David Conrad writes:
>
>> Owen,
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Yes, one time.
>>>
>>> Truly one time.
>>>
>>> No other fees.
>>
>> Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
>>
>> What would happen if
David Conrad writes:
> Owen,
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Yes, one time.
>>
>> Truly one time.
>>
>> No other fees.
>
> Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
>
> What would happen if you then stopped paying?
He'd lose his ASN. What do I win?
-r
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:24:45 -0400
Ben Jencks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> >>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> >>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change servi
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
>> That claim seems to be unsupported by curre
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
> That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Currently, most resi
> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Nathan
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Interesting... I guess controlling your own internet fate hasn't been a
> priority for the companies where you've worked. Not one of my clients
> or the companies I have worked for has even given a second thought
> to approving the cost of ad
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes, one time.
>
> Truly one time.
>
> No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
Regards,
-drc
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
>
> one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
>
> randy
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees. The $100/year I was already paying for my other resources
cove
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> Karl Auer wrote:
>>> That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
>>> $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
>>> the population would
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Karl Auer wrote:
> > That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
> > $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
> > the population would consider that "prohibitive" but I'm guessing that
>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Uh, no... You're misreading it.
Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250.
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4bc01459-b53a-4b2c-b75b-47d89550d...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> =20
>>> In message , Owen =
>> DeLong write
>>> s:
>>> =20
>> Which is part one of
>
> Coming across Phil Dykstra's paper from 1999 is what got me thinking
> about it (well, that and moving a lot of data between Europe and the
> West coast of the US).
>
> http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/jumbo.html
>
> http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/
>
>
Found more good information here:
h
>
> I've had pretty good luck asking for higher MTU's on both customer and
> peering links. I'd say about an 80% success rate for dedicated
GigE's.
> It's generally not on the forms though, and sometimes you get what I
> consider weird responses. For instance I know several providers who
> won't
> Probably no reason at all, though probably little perceived benefit.
> 1492 is common enough that google/youtube already runs lower MTU's
just
> to avoid common broken PPPoE setups (which often could run higher MTU,
> but weren't configured that way).
I run into that already with people doing va
In a message written on Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:09:28AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> variety of tags/tunnels/etc by the time it gets to the cell phone. It
> cracks me up that SONET interfaces default 4470, and ethernet still
> defaults to 1500. I've yet to see an MTU option in standard circuit
>
On 10/24/2010 5:05 AM, George Bonser wrote:
And speaking of changing MTU, is there any reason why private exchanges
shouldn't support jumbo frames? Is there any reason nowadays that things
that are ethernet end to end can't be MTU 9000 instead of 1500? It
certainly would improve performance and
On Oct 24, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
There are some folks (like me) wh
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
> >> a default gatew
>
> What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
> it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
> into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
> a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
>
>
> What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
> it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
> into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
> a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> Amen!
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>>
>> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
>> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
>> is make it work
> Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the
> network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it,
> or
> /80 - /96 for the rest of us)
Why do you feel it's a poor decision to assign /64's to individual LANs?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
> is make it work like IPv4.
>
>
I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and
On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are cre
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >> Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
> >> capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
> >> routers
> >> are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
>> I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet to give hosts addresses
>> but never give them a default gateway, but that would be a little
>> useless no?
>
> Works great when you don't need routing.
Or the default route should point out a
>>>
>> Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
>> capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all routers
>> are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really, since you
>> have to use high for everything in any reasonable deploy
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 03:48 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
> An RA is single, periodic, in the order of 100s of seconds, multicast
> packet. If you're arguing against the cost of that, then I think you're
> being a bit too precious with your packets.
Just to be clear on this: I was taking issue solely w
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:08 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
> > Karl Auer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> >>> On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>
> Ho
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
>> point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
>> feater told the rest of the group "He's an opera
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
feater told the rest of the group "He's an operator and thus doesn't
understand how any of this works, ignore hi
In a message written on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:25:18PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
> There isn't a method to specify a default gateway in DHCPv6. Some
> people want it, however it seems a bit pointless to me if you're going
> to have RAs announcing M/O bits anyway - you may as well use those RAs
> to
The design of IPv6 is that DHCPv6 and RA work together. This is why
there is no method to express the default gateway using DHCPv6, that
task is handled by the RA. I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet
to give hosts addresses but never give them a default gateway, but
that would be a little
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
> Karl Auer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
DHCPv
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> > >
> > > How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
> > > DHCPv6 works. I guess there is a lot of misunderstanding ab
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Karl Auer wrote:
Fairly trivial amounts for most commercial entities, but prohibitive for
all but the most enthusiastic home user.
Perfect. Let's not pollute DFZ more than needed.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> >
> > How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
> > DHCPv6 works. I guess there is a lot of misunderstanding about how
> > DHCPv6 works, even among the experts...
>
> Actuall
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
> >>>
> >> I keep hearing this and it never makes sense to me.
> >>
> >> If your provider will assign you a static /48, then, you have stable
> >> addresses when your provider link is down in GUA. Who needs ULA?
> >
> > You used the word "if". Reverse the sense o
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Uh, no... You're misreading it.
Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250. We could argue til
In message <4bc01459-b53a-4b2c-b75b-47d89550d...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message , Owen =
> DeLong write
> > s:
> >=20
> Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make =
> ULA
> really
In message <3d230c80-e7cc-4b73-9e47-780df5fa3...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> >> Where does the 6K come from?
> >>
> >> AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the "Associate
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>> Where does the 6K come from?
>>
>> AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the "Associate Member
>> Fee" (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500)
>>
>> Then AUD1180 for
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get
>>> it routed then do that. If you are forced to use PA (think home
>>> networks) then having a ULA prefix as well is a goo
>>>
>> I keep hearing this and it never makes sense to me.
>>
>> If your provider will assign you a static /48, then, you have stable
>> addresses when your provider link is down in GUA. Who needs ULA?
>
> You used the word "if". Reverse the sense of the "if" and see if
> it still doesn't makes
(Response inline).
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> We've decided to disable SLAAC (State-Less Address Auto-Configuration)
>> on almost all our IPv6 networks and use DHCPv6 exclusively. This
>
> Ouch... Sounds painful.
Really? I don't know. Maybe as a consultant you don'
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Owen DeLong
> write
> s:
>
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
r
>
>> They *will* fight you, and tell you to your face that if you want to
>> take NAT away from them it will be from their cold dead hands.
>
> And it isn't NAT in and of itself that is attractive. Those people
> aren't talking about static NAT where you are just translating the
> network prefix
> Using multiple ISPs is still something that is a bit tricky. A lot of
> people have gotten used to the Dual-WAN Firewall appliance boxes that
> accept connections from two ISPs and handle the failover, depending on
> NAT to maintain the functionality of the Internal network.
>
> Larger organiza
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> Justification aside, it is quote affordable for a typical power user.
For large values of affordable.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>
> In Oz it costs real money to get IPv6 address space from the RIR
> (APNIC). Around AUD$6K in the first year, around AUD$1100 each year
> thereafter.
>
> Your /48, according to the ARIN website, cost you US$625 this year,
> will
> cost US$937.50 next year, and $1250 every year thereafter.
Co
In message <5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0b14c...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com>, "
George Bonser" writes:
> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:16 PM
> > To: Owen DeLong
> > Cc: NANOG list
> > Subject: Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
> &
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Allen Smith wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've inherited a small network with a couple of Internet connections through
> different providers, I'll call them Slow and Fast.
>
> We use RFC 1918 space internally and have a pair of external firewalls that
> handle NAT and such.
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their publi
...@biplane.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 10:48 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
>
> On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> > Where does the 6K come from?
> >
> > AUD$4,175 is the amount -
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Where does the 6K come from?
>
> AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the "Associate Member
> Fee" (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500)
>
> Then AUD1180 for a /48 each year.
Er - apologies. Yes, the initial fee c
e-
> From: Karl Auer [mailto:ka...@biplane.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 10:00 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
>
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > If your big enough to get your own
On 10/21/2010 5:56 PM, George Bonser wrote:
How does your application on the host decide which address to use when
sourcing an outbound connection if you have two different subnets that
are globally routable?
Many systems generally will go with the closest source address bitwise
to the destin
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get
> > it routed then do that. If you are forced to use PA (think home
> > networks) then having a ULA prefix as well is a good thing.
> >
> home network: 2620:0:930::/48
In
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:16 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
>
> IPv4 think.
>
> You don't re-address you add a new address to every node. IPv6 is
> designed for multiple addresses.
>
In message <859028c2-9ed9-43ff-aaf9-6e2574048...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za>, Graham Beneke writes:
> >> On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Je
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
> >>>
> >> Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
> >> really bad for the internet.
> >>
> >> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
> >> route it within their public network between multiple sites o
And since someone asked me for it off-list, example PACL for IOS to
filter RAs and DHCPv6 server traffic on incoming ports:
On each switch:
ipv6 access-list RA_Guard
deny icmp any any router-advertisement
deny udp any eq 547 any eq 546
permit any any
end
And on each switchport:
ipv6 traffic-
Also,
Keep in mind that DHCPv6 uses a DUID for host identification and not a
MAC address.
Here is an example ISC DHCPd configuration for an IPv6 network without
open pool allocation (it will only respond for hosts in the config).
# subnet6 for each network
subnet6 FD00:1234:5678:9ABC::/64 { opti
I think you're misunderstanding how DHCPv6 works. Don't think of it
like DHCP that you're used to.
DHCPv6 requires an IPv6 router advertisement to work. There are three
flags of interest in a router advertisement.
One of them is the "A" (autonomous) flag which is enabled by default
in almost ev
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 14:19 -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
> We've decided to disable SLAAC (State-Less Address Auto-Configuration)
> on almost all our IPv6 networks and use DHCPv6 exclusively. This
> allows us to only respond with DHCPv6 to the hosts we want to get an
> IPv6 address instead of enabling
> From: Ray Soucy
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:49 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
>
> See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
> in a year ago.
>
> Perception i
Mark Smith expunged
(na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org):
> ULAs should never and are prohibited from appearing in the global route table
The problem with this statement is that everyone thinks their own table isn't
the "Global Routing Table."
-Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:26 AM
> To: Ray Soucy
> Cc: NANOG list
>
> If you're using IPv4 with multiple providers giving you different NAT
> pools, then, you're looking at outbound, not inbound resiliency and
>
One thing to keep in mind is that your IPv6 router and IP router can
be completely different devices. There is no need to forklift your
firewall or current setup if you can easily add an IPv6 router to the
network.
Using multiple ISPs is still something that is a bit tricky. A lot of
people have
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 04:46, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get
>> it routed then do that. If you are forced to use PA (think home
>> networks) then having a ULA prefix as well is a good
> -Original Message-
> From: Ray Soucy > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:00 AM
> To: Jeroen van Aart
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
> The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
> box, and no
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
>> route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
>> the same customer.
>
> Is this happening now with
Hi All,
I've inherited a small network with a couple of Internet connections through
different providers, I'll call them Slow and Fast.
We use RFC 1918 space internally and have a pair of external firewalls that
handle NAT and such.
Due to internal policy (read money), some users default to the
See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
in a year ago.
Perception is a powerful thing. And Joe IT guy at Mom and Pop dot com
(who's network experience involves setting up a Linksys at home) loves
his magical NAT box firewall appliance. Over the last year I've been
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
> sound like you might want ULA at all.
>
> The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
> box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
> d
I guess my point is that as soon as you introduced the human element
into ULA with no accountability, it became a lost cause. People can't
be trusted to respect the RFC once they know it's non-routed address
space, and I suspect most won't. Just like countless vendors still
use 1.1.1.1 as a baked
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
doesn't exist in IPv6. There is no IPv6 NAT (yet).
If you w
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
> space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
> the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
> authority (who knows why, but with that
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that much address space nobody
really cares).
People may th
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za>, Graham Beneke writes:
>> On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes th
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
> Graham Beneke wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>>> Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes
>>> this is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
>>>
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
>>> route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
>>>
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>> To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
>> both ULA and global addressing in your network.
>
> Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresse
>>>
>> Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
>> really bad for the internet.
>>
>> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
>> route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
>> the same customer.
>>
>
> That sam
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Smith
> [mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:41 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses
>
> I
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
>
> > I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
> > caught out by collisions.
> >
> > The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
> > someon
On 10/20/10 9:44 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
>
>> I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
>> caught out by collisions.
>>
>> The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
>> someone out with a collision
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
> >> route it within their public network between multiple sites own
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
> I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
> caught out by collisions.
>
> The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
> someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
You assume tha
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:12:11 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
> >
> > * Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
> > be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
>
> I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
> applications for that proto
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:11 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <4cbfa9bb.9030...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> > ULA + PA can have the same problems, especially if your ULA is
> > inter-organization ULA, which was one of the cases under discussion.
>
> Which still isn't a probl
>
> * Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
> be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
applications for that protocol that it can boggle. Any type of connection
between two things that
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:50:06 -0700
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 7:27 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > * Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
> >be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
> "because of NATs" s/b "because certain parties refused to acknowled
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0500
James Hess wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses
> > from provider #1 and PA addresses from provider #2 in your
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
