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 Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and
[ arin cesspool removed from cc: as i can not post there anyway ]
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundem...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:17 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: Owen DeLong; Benson Schliesser; NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
naysayer...)
On Mon
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
excuse me!
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating
production networks.
most
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
seems to be most pronounced
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
Seriously, some people will not move until the path they are on is already
burning, which is why they did nothing over the last 5 years despite knowing
that the IANA pool was exhausting much faster than they had wanted to
believe. It took getting
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
excuse me!
Hi, Randy. I didn't mean to deny you exist;
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
excuse me!
On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
Youtube,...), but:
Actually, many facebook and youtube features will also be degraded.
- Less torrenting
-
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM
To: Benson Schliesser
Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
naysayer...)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests
otherwise, I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the
possibility that NAT444
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
of bleep
randy
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:59 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Benson Schliesser'; 'NANOG list'; 'ARIN-PPML
List'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
naysayer
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
of bleep
Running out of
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
question.
Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access the IPv4 domain? That'll
go down real
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
question.
Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
required functionality for IPv6-only hosts
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
Youtube,...), but:
- Less torrenting
- Less Netflix watching
- Less FTP downloads
- Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
You might take a hit on
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not meaningfully
make the situation better for those
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
So, in essence, you are advocating not to
interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
working as it's pretty clear that
the available solution set is fairly broken.
On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
So, in essence, you are advocating not to
interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
working as it's pretty clear
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
In case you have not already found this:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It
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 9:24, Zed Usser wrote:
Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
Youtube,...), but:
- Less torrenting
- Less Netflix watching
- Less FTP downloads
- Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
You forget:
- no IPv6 tunnels
Deploying NAT444
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
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to deal
with these issues in any case?
I'd
* 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 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
In case you have not already found this:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
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 Feb 18, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
to have to deal with these issues in any case?
No, we need to move
On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
to have to deal with
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Zed Usser zzu...@yahoo.com wrote:
Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6
transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to disappear overnight. Furthermore,
without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only networks are going to
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You only need to solve those problems to the
extent that there are meaningful things still
trapped in an IPv4-only world.
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not result in
IPv6-only hosts before we run out of
On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to
analyze NAT444, but it really analyzes what
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Zed Usser wrote:
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
You only need to solve those problems to the
extent that there are meaningful things still
trapped in an IPv4-only world.
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
The document is titled Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
Applications and it claims to discuss NAT444 issues. However, it conflates
NAT444 with CGN. And it is often used as an
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
element. Other deployment scenarios that also include a CGN
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net
wrote:
I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
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
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise,
I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444
breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't
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
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
