On 18/01/2013 17:48, "Joe Maimon" wrote:
>Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as
>they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.
Yes indeed, and the smart folks who thought (clearly didn't!) about how
the best way to manage IPV6 and IPV4 in the acces
On 17/01/2013 14:29, "Brandon Ross" wrote:
>
>AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
>you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
>
>Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
>need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess.
Indeed, the
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Kell [mailto:jeff-k...@utc.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:30 PM
[snip]
> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
> imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
> default-deny inbound here,
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
> > On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT
> for
> > more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
> > different.
> Corp
On 1/18/13, David Swafford wrote:
> There is no "suckerage" to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
> CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
Correct. CGN may be part of a transition towards IPv6.Not all
providers are necessarily going to see it that way.
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:26:53 +, Mike Jones said:
> Potentially another source of IPv4 addresses - every content network
> (/hosting provider/etc) that decides they don't want to give their
> customers IPv6 reachability is a future bankrupt ISP with a load of
> IPv4 to sell off :)
The problem
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> The killer app of the internet is called p2p.
P2p is not an app, it's a technique for implementing an app. There are
few apps which require p2p and can't be trivially redesigned not to.
If you'll pardon me saying so (and even if you
On 19 January 2013 04:48, Doug Barton wrote:
> No, because NAT-like solutions to perpetuate v4 only handle the client side
> of the transaction. At some point there will not be any more v4 address to
> assign/allocate to content provider networks. They have seen the writing on
> the wall, and many
On 01/18/2013 02:07 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
OSI and X.400 never gained much of a foothole and the millenium
generation probably never heard of them.
Is it possible that the same fate awaits IPv6 ? There is pressure to go
to IPv6, but if solutions are found for IPv4 which are simpler and
There is no "suckerage" to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
single long term solution. Imagine a day where there is no dual
stack, no IPv4, and no more band-aids. It will be amazing.
david.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:
Constantine,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
>> off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network add
On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> From the article:
>
> "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
> off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
> translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's customers could be
> shar
On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>> Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
>> limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
>> means the next "must have" viral appl
On 13-01-18 17:00, William Herrin wrote:
> Odds of a killer app where one router can't be replaced with a
> specialty relay while maintaining the intended function: not bloody
> likely.
Back in the late 1980s, large computer manufacturers such as Digital,
HP, IBM were pressured to adopt the futur
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
> limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
> means the next "must have" viral applications will require IPv6 and this
> may spur the move
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> Years ago, I asked, "Why are we stuck with NAT?" I still ask that. I
> believe that the reason we're stuck with it is that so many of us believe
> we're stuck with it--we're resigned to failure, so we don't do anything
> about it.
Hi Lee,
We
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
means the next "must have" viral applications will require IPv6 and this
may spur the move away from an IPv4 that has been crippled by NAT
everywhere.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
> On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
> more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
> different.
Corporate enterprises have been pushing GPO to the desktop for more
than a decade a
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:21:28 -0500, William Herrin said:
> Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
> 90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
> It's a free country so you're welcome to believe that the presence or
> absence of NAT has no impa
On 1/18/13 1:03 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote:
>
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
>> let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
>> apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
>> wel
On 1/18/13 12:48 PM, "Joe Maimon" wrote:
>
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
>> Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys
>>it,
>> then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
>> by some, then others'
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 8:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>> Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
>>> 90% of the port scanning attacks which happen
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
> On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
>>90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
>>It's a free country so you're welcome to believe that th
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
well imagine that increasing to 50:1). That means that for e
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
>> Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
>> then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IP
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>>> Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even
>>> the finest of our tricksters.
>>
>> Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
>> e
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
effect. Als
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
>> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
>> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
>> clients or the gen
On 1/18/13 9:03 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
>> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
>> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
>> clients or the general-purpose non-server non-
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
somebody smart can fig
Owen DeLong wrote:
Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even the
finest of our tricksters.
Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
extensions to code to work around yet more NAT and maybe make it sort of kind
of work almost a
(resending with nanog-approved address..)
On 18. jan. 2013 01:30, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything
On 18-1-2013 15:03, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
> wrote:
> On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
> more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
> different.
Well yeah, but everything is
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
> technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
> clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application
> developers.
Correct. The most sign
>
> I hate to break it to you guys more of the larger providers in NA are
> implementing CGNAT in the next 6 to 18 months. Especially the mobile carriers.
I have agreed long ago that mobile is the one place where CGN will go mostly
unnoticed. First of all, most mobiles have been behind some f
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> And this is where you run off the rails… You are assuming that NAT today
>> and CGN provide similar functionality from an end-user perspective.
>
> To the extent that CGN functions like the cluel
Owen DeLong wrote:
And this is where you run off the rails… You are assuming that NAT today
and CGN provide similar functionality from an end-user perspective.
To the extent that CGN functions like the clueless linksys daisy-chain,
then yes it does.
The reality is that they do not. CGN is
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
I'm currently using NAT44, with at least two layers of 802.11g
WiFi and 5 routers that seem to be doing independent NAT. Two of them
are mine, then the other 3 are of the ISP, to whom I connect through
802.11g, and it generally works just f
On 17 January 2013 17:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
>>> and many of the other IM clients.
>>
>> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox,
On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
>> and many of the other IM clients.
>
> Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
> imaginable (other t
I'll agree there, as developers have built in some tricks to work around NAT
issues. But in reality doing away with NAT is a much better alternative for
the long haul. So you are both right, but I'll side with Owen when doing
network deployments as to ease my future headaches.
Sent from my iP
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
> and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
default
>
> Nevertheless, I'll be happy to document my assumptions and show you
> where they lead.
>
> I assume that fewer than 1 in 10 eyeballs would find Internet service
> behind a NAT unsatisfactory. Eyeballs are the consumers of content,
> the modem, cable modem, residential DSL customers.
And this
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
>>> The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
>>> somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
>>> i
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
>> The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
>> somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
>> is frustrating and unfun.
>
>"Free network-based firewall
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . wrote:
> The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
> somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
> is frustrating and unfun.
"Free network-based firewall to be installed next month. OPT OUT HERE
if you don't
On 17 January 2013 15:29, Brandon Ross wrote:
..
> AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
> you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
>
> Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
> need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess.
Ok. I w
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Mike Jones wrote:
If you follow this list then you should already know the answer,
functional* IPv6 deployments.
AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game deve
On 17 January 2013 10:06, . wrote:
> i am not network engineer, but I follow this list to be updated about
> important news that affect internet stability.
>
> NAT is already a problem for things like videogames. You want people
> to be able to host a multiplayer game, and have his friends to joi
i am not network engineer, but I follow this list to be updated about
important news that affect internet stability.
NAT is already a problem for things like videogames. You want people
to be able to host a multiplayer game, and have his friends to join
the game. A free to play MMO may want to ma
In message <50f70524.4020...@fredan.se>, fredrik danerklint writes:
> >> Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a
> >> class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only havi
> ng
> >> 6rd as service on that network.
> >
> > ARIN and IETF coopera
On 16/01/2013 08:31, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, fredrik danerklint wrote:
From the article:
"Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to
take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
translation CG-NAT, where potentially all
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:53 PM, fredrik danerklint
wrote:
>> ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN
>> use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible to implement a CGN while
>> conflicting with neither the user's RFC1918 activity nor the general
>> Internet's use of assi
Hi,
> If I have calculated the netmasks right that would mean to set aside:
>
> 2001:0DB8:6440::/42
>
> for the use of 6rd service:
>
> 2001:0DB8:6440:::/64 = 100.64.0.0
>
> 2001:0DB8:647F:::/64 = 100.127.255.255
You probably should add a few extra bits for subnetting behind the 6
Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a
class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only having
6rd as service on that network.
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN
use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM, fredrik danerklint
wrote:
>> Barring a few fanatics, everyone here
>> has known for several years now that CGN would be required for
>> continuing IPv4 support regardless of the progress of IPv6.
>>
>> If you spin it right, it's a "Free network-based firewall to b
I would hope that PlusNet has valid, well-thought-out reasons for deploying
CGN instead of IPv6. Not knowing those, I can only jugde their position on
its face: foolish and short-sighted.
Move along, nothing to see here. Barring a few fanatics, everyone here
has known for several years now that
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Daniel Ankers wrote:
In other words, it makes sense to be able to support customers who won't
move to IPv6 in the short-medium term, even though in the long term it's
inevitable.
I agree, IPv6 isn't an answer to "we're out of IPv4 addresses" right now.
So CGNAT44 i combi
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
> I would hope that PlusNet has valid, well-thought-out reasons for deploying
> CGN instead of IPv6. Not knowing those, I can only jugde their position on
> its face: foolish and short-sighted.
Move along, nothing to see here. Barring a
On 16 January 2013 16:31, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, fredrik danerklint wrote:
>
> From the article:
>>
>> "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to
>> take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
>> translation CG-NAT, w
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, fredrik danerklint wrote:
From the article:
"Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address translation
CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's customers could be sharing one IP
61 matches
Mail list logo
