The NANOG Program Committee is pleased to announce that the
agenda for the upcoming meeting in Bellevue, WA has been posted:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0706/topics.html
If you haven't already registered to attend, now is a great time!
Sorry to post 4 times this year, and really, it just kind o
you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you submit?
randy
On 5/26/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you submit?
If you are going to stand at microphones at other groups meetings and
take credit for turning on the first v6 network, perhaps you should be
asking yourself this very qu
On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
> submit?
>
Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
migration, transition, and operations issues. No, I'm not volunteeri
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:31 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Martin Hannigan; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
>> submit?
>>
> Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
> migration, transition, and operatio
n: Columbia University
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:31:28 -0400
> Para: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
>> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
>>> submit?
>>>
>> Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
>> migr
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
[..]
> I would vastly prefer to here people talk about what they are doing
> rather that hear the same set of usual suspects talk about "what we
> should be doing". The later is tiresome and we have a decade worth of
> examples of it to pick through.
Well, what I described is w
On 5/26/07, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
> submit?
>
Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
migration,
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> I would urge potential sponsors to insist that V6 is on the agenda as
> a condition of funding, both meeting sponsors and Beer 'N Gear.
it is possible that vendors might not want that story told on their
behalf... there are still a significant nu
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 07:51:52PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
> > Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
> >> submit?
> >>
> > Given the ARIN statement, I
On May 26, 2007, at 8:57 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I think you're missing a few things here.
(subset of CPE --)
- "Firewalls" and NAT (wasn't v6 supposed to stop the latter)
- end-hosts (Grandma still using unpatched win98/winME isn't going
to be looking at the ipv6 pr0n project an
Krichbaum, Eric wrote:
Agreed. The statement from ARIN is recent and impacts us all. We've
got our core v6 routing in place, but operationally, that's really the
easy part. Modifying the tools such as billing, monitoring, management,
tracking, and auditting are the slow link in the chain.
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why I posted something similar almost 2 years ago
now :( It'd be very good to get some actual content on v6 that the ma
>> you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
>> submit?
> If you are going to stand at microphones at other groups meetings and
> take credit for turning on the first v6 network, perhaps you should be
> asking yourself this very question?
first, i did not say i turned it
On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why I posted something similar almost 2 years ago
now :( It'd
. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
> On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>>> on things, could cost some money. I&#x
Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
>> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
>
> Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
> one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
Why not? If folks are still using Windows 98 by then I
IL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:48:30 +1200
> Para:
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
>
> On 27/05/2007, at 9:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>
On 27/05/2007, at 11:06 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4
addresses?
Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
Why not
> Nathan Ward wrote:
> [..]
> >> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
> >=20
> > Sure, but it's not as simple as just giving v6 addresses to end users
> > one day, even if your entire network and backend systems support it.
>
> Why not? If folks are still using Wi
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> > > on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> > > an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
> >
> > i agree 100
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also missed the suggestion that se
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also missed the suggestion that send
On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
> >> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
> >> sound to me like lesser service), during the t
william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
>>> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
>>> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
>>> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
>>
>> I
deploying IPv6".
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Manolo Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:48:23 -0400
> Para:
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
On Sun, 27 May 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> There are many things in Vista, and hopefully more to come, which prefer
> IPv6 for peer-to-peer. And even if the ISPs don't offer IPv6 at all, hosts
> use 6to4 or Teredo to automatically provide the required IPv6 connectivity.
is there a glo
On 27/05/2007, at 9:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y!
with
> an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Chris L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:27:40 + (GMT)
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Nanog
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
&g
I believe that using a gateway or a translation device for ipv6-ipv4
just gives people an excuse to ignore ipv6. I really do believe that if
ipv6 is to go full scale we have to jump in with everything ipv6 only or
ipv4 the intermediate will just postpone the inevitable.
Take that from experience,
nsition is needed and it is a smart
thing.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Manolo Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 13:50:14 -0400
Para: "Chris L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
On 5/26/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
wow! you missed the one day workshop in the lacnic meeting you just
attended? bummer.
I'm lucky enough to be able to attend RIPE, ARIN, and LACNIC meetings
so that I can get basic information since I can't get that at a NANOG
meeti
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 03:14:44PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > > on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
> > >
> Isn't the driver going to be scarcity and/or expense of v4 addresses?
and the speed bump extraordinaire is that you can not connect to the
internet from a v6 only site. in the mid and long run, all else pales
before this.
the rest is mostly
o how to configure frammistat
o why does flogist
> A simple solution are the IPv4-IPv6 proxies
'cept you wither you need v4 addresses, or it don't scale.
randy
For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them IPv4/IPv6
dual-stack. When that is not the case one can always do minimal tunnels
inside the AS. Same for getting transit, it doesn't have to be directly
native, but when getting it try to keep the AS's crossed with a tunnel
for getti
On 29/05/2007, at 1:35 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them IPv4/
IPv6
dual-stack. When that is not the case one can always do minimal
tunnels
inside the AS. Same for getting transit, it doesn't have to be
directly
native, but when getting
Don't forget customers. Turning this thing on for customers appears to be
non-trivial in many cases.
The only way I can see a customer being affected is if their CPE does
IPv6, it's enabled on the CPE, and it's enabled on their network. If all
of those are true- then the customer probably has
With Vista and OS X turning on IPv6 natively, as well as Vista's love
for 6to4 and Teredo, are your helpdesk staff skilled enough to deal with
problems if say, Google or Yahoo! were to turn on records tomorrow?
This is here now, and if we want this to happen without pain, I think we
n
That is, of course, after I find some way to get my /48 announced... none of
my upstreams currently offer native v6 (not sure about tunnels yet) so I'm a
content provider without any global v6 connectivity :(
matthew zeier wrote:
With Vista and OS X turning on IPv6 natively, as well as V
On 26-mei-2007, at 12:10, Martin Hannigan wrote:
My colleagues and I need some training. We don't have the experience.
I'm asking because we want to see this at NANOG and I'm wondering why
there isn't. Exhaustion from ICANN to RIR's and then to users is real,
and it's happening. Help.
Let me
On 29-mei-2007, at 3:35, Donald Stahl wrote:
Actually setting up a dual-stack infrastructure isn't very difficult-
anyone who has done so would probably agree. The problems (as has
already been pointed out) come from management, billing and the like.
I don't know what kinds of weird managemen
> For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> IPv4/IPv6
> dual-stack.
What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
publicly discussed and compared.
> Towards endusers it can become nasty, eg it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
> Back in the day, there was something called Interop where vendors were
> put under the thumb. Since there is no such thing for IPv6, perhaps
> NANOG could step into that vacuum.
For the "non-existing" IPv6 Interop check http://www.ipv6ready.org/
who have been doing
ED]>
> CC: Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steven M. Bellovin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin Hannigan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
> On 29-mei-2007, at 3:35, Dona
>Back in the day, there was something called Interop where vendors were
>put under the thumb. Since there is no such thing for IPv6, perhaps
>NANOG could step into that vacuum.
I've gotten a couple of replies pointing me to http://www.ipv6ready.org
Although the website doesn't make it very clear
On Tue, May 29, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's why I suggested that NANOG run some kind of IPv6 vendor showcase
> in which all the vendors would be running an interoperable IPv6 network.
> As many have pointed out, this is not just about routers since Cisco and
> Juniper have had IPv6 su
On 29-mei-2007, at 13:41, Adrian Chadd wrote:
* So is DHCPv6 the "way to go" for deploying IPv6 range(s) to end-
customers?
Considering the current models of L2TP over IP for broadband
aggregation
and wholesaling where the customer device speaks PPPoX.
IP6CP in PPP doesn't have the cap
At 3:30 PM + 5/27/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>what's going to change this in the near future?
At some point in the near future (e.g. 3 to 5 years),
an ISP is going to be connecting some customers to
the 'Internet' using just IPv6 addresses. It may not
be your ISP doing it first, but it will
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:25:21AM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
> I'd like to see ipv6.cnn.com, ipv6.google.com, ipv6.yahoo.com, etc. I don't
> see where this would be a problem for anyone except those people who
> explicitly try to connect via IPv6- and those people should really know
> enou
At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even
if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and
mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to
use IPv6, it's getting their public-facing servers IPv6
reachable
On 29-mei-2007, at 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users
connected via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the
content is reachable.
Actually IPv6 has the potential to be very important in the peer-to-
peer space. That doesn't ju
On 5/29/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 29-mei-2007, at 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
> The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start
> by using different dns names for IPv6 enabled servers-
> mail.ipv6.yahoo.com or whatever. Can anyone think of a re
On 5/29/07, John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:
P.S. I'm not at this NANOG, and it's probably too late
to round up presentations, but what might be
really helpful to most folks would be presentations
which cover some or most aspects (getting transit,
address
,
Jordi
> De: Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Para: John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
>> At this point, ISP's sho
At 9:21 AM -0400 5/29/07, Donald Stahl wrote:
>>At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
>>customers with both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, even
>>if the IPv6 connectivity is solely for their web servers and
>>mail gateway. The priority is not getting customers to
>>use IPv6, it
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:22:23PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> On 5/26/07, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > wow! you missed the one day workshop in the lacnic meeting you just
> > attended? bummer.
>
> I'm lucky enough to be able to attend RIPE, ARIN, and LAC
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
It is not useless- I am specificallyt talking about setting it up
initially so that technically capable people can use and test the
infrastructure without breaking anything for those people on v
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
>
> At 3:30 PM + 5/27/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >what's going to change this in the near future?
>
> At some point in the near future (e.g. 3 to 5 years),
> an ISP is going to be connecting some customers to
> the 'Internet' using just IPv6 address
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> # traceroute6 www.nanog.org
> traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
>
> That would be a start... It took years to get the IETF to eat its own
> dog food, though.
i suspect the merit/nanog folks involved with the server(s)
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > IPv4/IPv6
> > dual-stack.
>
> What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
>
> Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
> publicly discusse
> what's interesting is the chicken/egg problem of users/content/ipv6.
> What's driving v6 deployment?
Currently, it is IPv4 exhaustion. As for content, that can be tied to
users in some situations, for instance VPNs. That's why I think that a
lot of the worry is premature. Instead of figuring ou
> (*) Anyone advocating staying with IPv4 and relying
> on NAT and market demand as an alternative
> needs to consider the completely deaggregated
> address usage pattern (and routing table explosion)
> that results.
not that i think this a nice approach or anything, but ...
it w
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
> Can anyone think of a
> reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
> cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
None that I can think of.
In the field, for servers/services we have enabled v6 on, we
have created paralle
Jordi,
On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
IPv6,
Why?
The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old
protocol. Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs. ).
Why sho
> > > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > > IPv4/IPv6
> > > dual-stack.
> >
> > What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
> >
> > Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
> > publicly discussed and compared.
>
> stewart bamfo
At 2:34 PM + 5/29/07, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > Actual behavior of ISPs will change as they realize even
>> if they're not the first ISP to have to connect customers
>> via IPv6-only, they will be face that situation in time.
>
>i'm not disagreeing or saying that ipv6 won't ever get deployed
At 5:08 AM -1000 5/29/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> > (*) Anyone advocating staying with IPv4 and relying
>> on NAT and market demand as an alternative
>> needs to consider the completely deaggregated
>> address usage pattern (and routing table explosion)
>> that results.
>
>not that i t
Jared Mauch wrote:
Some providers (eg: www.us.ntt.net) have their sales/marketing
path ipv6 enabled. Perhaps this will help self-select customers that are
clued? ;)
Most European/Asian based providers/peers don't even blink when I
mention turning up IPv6. Not so with most US based ne
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
>
> ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition
> to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting
> customer expectations.
and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
expending opex/capex to do this transition wor
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> > Can anyone think of a
> > reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
> > cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
>
> None that I can think of.
branding
o-peer traffic is already taking
advantage of IPv6, even only with transition mechanism such as 6to4 and
Teredo.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:22:35 -0700
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > > > For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them
> > > > IPv4/IPv6
> > > > dual-stack.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?
> > >
> > > Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy
On 29 May 2007, at 5:22pm, David Conrad wrote:
[...]
they should not notice it.
They shouldn't, but they will. Having had the fun of trying to
figure out why I lost connectivity to a site (then realizing it was
because I had connected via IPv6 instead of IPv4 and IPv6
routing ... chan
nt), so make sure to make it just a starting point.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:09:17 +0200
> Para: Nanog
> Conversación: NANOG 40 agenda posted
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
> What I'm sayin
On Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
> So many people seem to be obsessed with getting the end users connected
> via IPv6 but there is no point in doing so until the content is reachable.
> The built in tunneling in Windows could be a problem so let's start by
> using different
How do you get mail.ipv6.yahoo.com to actually get *used*, when your average
user doesn't know where they set 'mail.yahoo.com' in their PC's configuration,
and either don't understand why sometimes's it's foo.com and sometimes it's
www.foo.com, or don't even bother, they just type 'foo' into the
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor
> > 2) solve your favorite fib/rib/cam/convergence limit,
> > nor 3) make the infras
At 9:36 AM -0700 5/29/07, todd glassey wrote:
>>
>>This is an issue for the ISP community, in that a day
>>will come where you're going to desperately want to
>>connect a new customer to the "Internet" via IPv6
>>and give them a reasonable customer experience.
>
>Uhhh OK - but if you built you NAT
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
> > expending opex/capex to do this transition work. Today the simplest answer
> > is: "if we expend Z dollars on new equipment, and A dollars on IT work we
> > will be able to captu
On Tue, 29 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:34:59 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > > This changeover will not: 1) Fix the routing problem
> > > inherent with present locator/endpoint binding, nor
> > > 2) solve your favorit
On 29-mei-2007, at 18:17, Leo Vegoda wrote:
http://ask.metafilter.com/63532/Trouble-with-Firefox
it ends with this comment: "If your hosting provider is serving
your domain with IPv6, then it is time to find a new provider."
I guess they can stick with their current hosting provider then,
grr, it ain't just buying new equipment, it's IT work, its certification
of code/features/bugs, interoperatability. Provisioning, planning,
configmanagement training...
My apologies- I missed the "opex"-I thought you were just referring to
hardware which of course makes no sense.
-Don
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > grr, it ain't just buying new equipment, it's IT work, its certification
> > of code/features/bugs, interoperatability. Provisioning, planning,
> > configmanagement training...
> My apologies- I missed the "opex"-I thought you were just referring
but ipv6 is more secure, yes? :) (no it is not)
Does the relative security of IVp4 and IPv6 *really* matter on the same Internet
that has Vint Cerf's 140 million pwned machines on it?
was the ":)" not enough: "I'm joking" ??
Just askin', ya know?
some people do think that it does... they
0200
> Para: Leo Vegoda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: NANOG list
> Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
>
> On 29-mei-2007, at 18:17, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
>> http://ask.metafilter.com/63532/Trouble-with-Firefox
>
>> it ends with this comment: "If your h
On 30/05/2007, at 5:40 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
How do you get mail.ipv6.yahoo.com to actually get *used*, when
your average
user doesn't know where they set 'mail.yahoo.com' in their PC's
configuration,
and either don't understand why sometimes's it's foo.com and
sometimes it's
www.foo.c
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
they should not notice it.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner
we can sort it ou
On Tue, May 29, 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
> There is something to be said for not being able to blindly spew worm
> traffic and still expect to get a sensible hit ratio as with IPv4.
You don't need to blindly spew worm traffic anymore; you can just
spew based on p2p traffic.
Adrian
On 30/05/2007, at 11:33 AM, Perry Lorier wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and
IPv6,
they should not notice it.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need
to know
them ASAP. Any transition means some pa
On 30/05/2007, at 9:47 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being
didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to
the
.
I heard the same from other people. I also heard the opposite some
times,
but I hav
> > In the past we've used "www6" for v6 only, "www4" for v4 only, and
> > "www" has both v6 and v4.
> Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.
Which means it is an excellent suggestion for the transition phase into
an IPv6 Internet. Since that happens to be where we are right
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:40:00PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move first due to
> > lack of content
>
> pure bs. most significant backbones are dual stack. you are the
> chicken, claiming the sky is falling.
I'd have to say
essage-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:40 PM
> To: Tony Hain
> Cc: 'John Curran'; 'Donald Stahl'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
>
> > This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are r
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David W. Hankins wrote:
> Maybe I'm getting old, but the idea of managing this configuration
> information in my routers sounds like a real chore compared to the
> old DHCP relayed central server model.
not 'old' just 'sane'. or 'taking the same crazypills chris is', your
On 29 May 2007, at 14:49, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Isn't his point that y! could offer IPv6 e-mail in parallel to the
existing IPv4 service, putting the IPv6 machines in a subdomain
ipv6.yahoo.com, so that end users and networks who want to do it can
do so without bothering the others?
Thi
> > Isn't his point that y! could offer IPv6 e-mail in parallel to the
> > existing IPv4 service, putting the IPv6 machines in a subdomain
> > ipv6.yahoo.com, so that end users and networks who want to
> do it can
> > do so without bothering the others?
>
> This doesn't sound at all like a tr
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
