On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
Now that is what Baldrick* would call a cunning plan!
And interesting examples.
Christian
*Apologies to Tony Robinson and Blackadder
On 12 Mar 2011, at 18:52, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen
On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:
Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
You really think people will be communicating over the public internet using
IPv4 in 2031?
It will take a long time before
On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
community.
How can they return stuff to ARIN that they got
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How can they return stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
place?
ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
But last time I checked, the United States is in the ARIN region. And ARIN
did not exist when
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
By the way, IANA only deals in /8s. However, a lot of people got
legacy /16s or other non-/8 sizes, so some /8s that are marked
legacy actually contain a lot of unused space. Each of those /8 is
administered by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
that
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:36, Tore Anderson wrote:
Each of those /8 is
administered by a RIR, but it's unclear (to me at least) whether
that means that RIR gets to give out that space in its region or not.
The unused space in the ERX blocks were divided evenly between the RIRs
a couple of years
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/wilson-to-conrad-28jan08-en.pdf
Please find attached a summary spreadsheet (Excel format) providing
the agreed distribution of administrative responsibility
Hit your Page Down button a couple of times, it's included right there
in
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:59, Tore Anderson wrote:
Hit your Page Down button a couple of times, it's included right there
in the PDF.
I don't see anything that clears this up.
On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How can they return stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
place?
ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
But last time I checked, the United
Iljitsch,
In deed there were ERX unused space that were divided among RIRs, I
think it is referred as various ERX (pointed out by Tore).
http://bgp.potaroo.net/stats/nro/various.html
There were also ERX space transferred from ARIN DB (used to be in
InterNIC's) to RIRs because
On 18 feb 2011, at 14:10, Arturo Servin wrote:
When you talk about unused legacy space are you talking about the
various space or to the legacy space that is currently assigned but the
holders just require part of it?
Legacy space (A) = all the /8s marked as legacy by IANA.
Used
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17 feb 2011, at 17:35, George Bonser wrote:
Considering v4 is likely to be around for another decade or two, getting
Class E into general use seems easy enough to do.
You really think people will be communicating over the public
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17 feb 2011, at 18:57, John Curran wrote:
Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 feb 2011, at 12:00, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How can they return stuff to ARIN that they got from IANA in the first
place?
ARIN seems to be getting the very long end of the legacy stick.
But last time I checked, the
On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
networks to function, or we assign addresses that could otherwise
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few
more months, but:
Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which
about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed
In message 54cc2b0d-eae0-4b79-af19-20bbd233a...@istaff.org, John Curran
writes:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give =
us a few more months, but:
=20
Does the US government really need more than 150
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
made usable
In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
made usable
In other words,
On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the CGN/LSN
numbering and other
In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
together and deploy
IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
Or tell her to
On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel
endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
I think several people's point is that it
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a
few more months, but:
Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes:
It's not usable as general purpose unicast. Both those drafts
attempt to do that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00 does not.
Recommend you re-read.
It would be possible to use it as restricted purpose unicast, i.e.
to connect from a
If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.
As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
a strategy. Seeing 240/4 actually work would be
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain
their usage of those blocks to the rest of the community.
They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated
armaments than ARIN.
I agree it would be nice if they would
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.
As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
So, it won't work for you.
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
Cameron
Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
...
I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
is appropriate to the community, but,
You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
Technical Command),
I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.
My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
benefit. Yes, some linux may work. But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
work today. Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
240/4 solving
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's
I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. I escalated,
still no-go, it was a deep problem. And they pointed to the IETF
saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
or whatever to fix it.
Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as it
On 2/17/2011 1:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
As in, large, dedicated, and nigh unstoppable, but fraught with peril
and with a lot of mess and destruction to get through before it is
done, or as in mainly opposed by aging crazy Nazis
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
...
I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
is appropriate to the community, but,
You mean like they already did with
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.
--
Jeffrey
On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
Yes, and also with mass fear and
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without
In message AANLkTi=uzeqb2dykxhvrxakfasphgfdmxjp1p-gj0...@mail.gmail.com, Came
ron Byrne writes:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only
In message 32ecc9cd-d927-4407-914c-751316c59...@istaff.org, John Curran write
s:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great.
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
They are in the business of selling new gear, not enabling features on EOL
equipment :)
-Steve
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting.
In message 5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
In message 20110217203922.gb3...@mara.org, Steve Meuse writes:
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
They are in the business of selling new gear, not
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org, Steve Meuse writes:
George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it
In message 1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
box to
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code. This should be
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
some progress has
But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to
forklift
the
devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the
kernel,
either.
The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a
counter
productive waste of time. At best it's slightly
In message c02476ce-0544-430e-bb70-b752406ad...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com, Owen =
DeLong write
s:
=20
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just
lo
ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only
o
ption.
And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
support it.
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
Remember a lot of this problem is the direct result of vendors not
acting soon enough and that includes CISCO. Asking those vendors
to do a bit of work to fixup the results of their bad decisions is
not unreasonable. They can't fix hardware limitations
In message 20110218020622.ga10...@mara.org, Steve Meuse writes:
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
t lo
ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your on
ly o
ption.
And the
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
I think grandma is quite capable of doing it. She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done.
On my planet (Earth), this isn't likely ever happen.
-Steve
:56 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list; John Curran
Subject: Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
snip
I think grandma is quite capable of doing it. She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done. Most people that are scared
of doing it themselves have someone
In message 00bc01cbcf19$8b3f13d0$a1bd3b70$@iname.com, Frank Bulk writes:
You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week. I'd even pay you.
It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
(printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sally
Luckily, they do. Only the smart DSLAMs had issues, and they even
blocked IP protocol 41. haha
On 2/13/2011 4:44 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Fine approach as long as the DSLAMs and CPE allow ether type 0x86DD to pass.
Fine approach as long as the DSLAMs and CPE allow ether type 0x86DD to pass.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Ricky Beam
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 16:02, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
i.e. cellphones... the two largest groups there (iPhone and Android)
support IPv6 already.
No they don't. Only Symbian and Maemo (MeeGo?) supports IPv6 *on the
mobile side*.
Not android, not iphone.
Unless this has changed in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My Milestone (android 2.1) uses IPv6 when connecting to a WLAN with
stateless auto configuration enabled... (well at least basic
connectivity when browsing web pages... Not sure about the rest...)
Am 12.02.2011 16:49, schrieb Thomas Habets:
On
On 2/12/2011 10:34 AM, Andre Keller wrote:
My Milestone (android 2.1) uses IPv6 when connecting to a WLAN with
stateless auto configuration enabled...
Am 12.02.2011 16:49, schrieb Thomas Habets:
*on the mobile side*.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Thomas Habets wrote:
Really.
Exactly. Can we PLEASE kill the myth that Android and iPhone has IPv6
support for mobile side. PLEASE. None do, and there are no publically
available roadmaps when this might happen on either OSes.
There are exactly two types of devices
On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:33:37 pm valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that was
already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather than It's
supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net, nobody's ever
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Thomas Habets wrote:
Really.
Exactly. Can we PLEASE kill the myth that Android and iPhone has IPv6
support for mobile side. PLEASE. None do, and there are no publically
available roadmaps when
On 02/12/2011 09:26 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them, and
would find it interesting if anyone has.
http://www.tunnelbroker.net/forums/index.php?topic=106.0
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
On 02/12/2011 02:32 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Lamar Owenlo...@pari.edu wrote:
While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them,
and would find it interesting if anyone has.
I used a WRT54G running DD-WRT for some time with a HE IPv6
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them,
and would find it interesting if anyone has.
I used a WRT54G running DD-WRT for some time with a HE IPv6 tunnel (now
replaced with a Cisco 877, but not
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 09:37 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
support. Please point your IPv6 interest here
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3389 and
That is on WiFi, NOT cellular.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Laurent GUERBY laur...@guerby.net wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 09:37 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along
these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was coming out with
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
wrote:
Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along
these lines back
I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
networks, ones a dozen or so very large networks switch, there is the
vast majority of Internet traffic right there. It will be around for a
very long time
On Friday 11 February 2011 15:00:57 Scott Helms wrote:
While Facebook working over IPv6 will be a big deal you won't get all of
their traffic since a significant fraction of that traffic is from
mobile devices which are going to take much longer than PCs to get to
using IPv6 in large
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Scott Helms khe...@ispalliance.net wrote:
Agreed, V4 traffic levels are likely to drop and stay at low levels for
decades.
I seriously doubt v4 traffic is going to fall off a cliff. That would
require IPv6 adoption on a large scale over a relatively short
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
There is no one universal global routing table. They probably appear in
someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
Using public
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Scott Helms
wrote:
Agreed, V4 traffic levels are likely to drop and stay at low levels
for
decades.
I seriously doubt v4 traffic is going to fall off a cliff. That would
require IPv6 adoption on a large scale over a relatively short period.
The thing
Lucky you.
.as
On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Josh Smith wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
wrote:
Amusingly
On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
networks, ones a dozen or so very large networks switch, there is the
vast majority of Internet traffic right
Comcast, nor the other large MSOs, are not as monolithic as they may appear
from the outside. In most cases the large MSOs are divided into regions that
are more or less autonomous and that doesn't count the outlier properties that
haven't been brought into the fold of the region they are
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
I don't know about that. Yes, v4 will be around for a long time but
considering the oligopolies we have in both eyeball and content
networks, ones a dozen or so very large
I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
In the WiMax case (Gee, thanks, SPRINT), things are a bit murkier, but, I
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
wrote:
The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
traffic.
Traffic has to have two end points. Just because the content source
supports IPv6 does not mean the content request will be. That's
Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of the
resource.
No it is not. IP was invented to enable internetworking. The IPv4
address registry
was set up so that anyone who wanted to use IP for internetworking could get
unique addresses. The key here, is
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol
and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
In the WiMax
One example I heard was a generic financial exchange connected to
perhaps a hundred other companies. Those companies also connect to the
Internet but the exchange itself does not. It's valuable for the
exchange to use addressing which will not conflict with any of its
customers' RFC1918 use
On 2/11/2011 3:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
In bridge mode, any modem will do. It's when the modem is also the
router (which is most cases today) that it will need attention to
support IPv6. (in bridge mode, you'll have to fix whatever it's plugged
into, but that's the customer's problem... off
Fixing the source (be it Facebook, Youtube, or netflix) is rather
simple
in concept -- it's just one network, and doesn't require touching
millions
of devices. Transit networks are hit-n-miss, but is becoming less of
a
burden. The CPE on the other hand is a whole other mess... there are
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:21:49 PST, George Bonser said:
That is a different question. People are always moving, for example,
turning in their old CPE and getting new. Old ones break and need to be
replaced with a new one. Let's say the gear they have been handing out
over the past couple of
On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
Not true. Two of my former employers went to ARIN every year or two and
received blocks around a /16 in size, specifically for use on global IP
networks
that did not intend to ever announce those addresses on the Internet. There
are
So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that
was already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather
than It's supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net,
nobody's ever actually *tried* it...)
I would venture to say the same as today's CPE
There is no hackery require to make IPv4 work in LTE. LTE supports
IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6 bearers all the same... its just an option from
the core perspective, handset / chipset makers like to limit the
options to keep cost and variability down.
My understanding (admittedly second hand,
On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:20:59 -0500, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
The thing is that a very few networks account for a very large amount of
traffic.
Traffic has to have two end points. Just because the content source supports
IPv6
On 2/11/2011 5:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No, you grossly underestimate the motivation that will exist to get the
eyeball networks v6 capable.
eyeball networks... we hack and patch them together. Silly putty is very
useful. IPv6 rollouts are no different. Just more silly putty.
IPv4
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already
underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol and
IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
I'm writing an
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
