On Sunday 11 April 2010 06:18:28 am Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> According to the book "On the edge" by Brian Bagnall the first showing
> was in March 1977. In January of 1977 it was announced at the CES. It
> was shown to John Roach, then an operations guy of Rat
> Shack. He was interested to ha
* Paul Vixie:
> as you have pointed out many times, ipv6 offers the same number of /32's
> as ipv4. however, a /32 worth of ipv6 is enough for a lifetime even for
> most multinationals,
With 6RD on the table, this is not quite correct anymore.
> plenty of people have accused ipv6 of being a solution in search of a
> problem. on this very mailing list within the last 72 hours i've seen
> another person assert that "ipv6 isn't needed." while i tend to agree
> with tony li who of ipv6 famously said it was "too little and too
> soon" we ha
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:52:24 -1000
>
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ... i'd like to pick the easiest problem and for that reason i'm urging
> > dual-stack ipv4/ipv6 for all networks new or old.
>
> Is anyone arguing against this?
yes. plenty of
In message <54701fcf-13ea-44da-8677-26a7c6635...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i'd like to pick the easiest problem and
> > for that reason i'm urging dual-stack ipv4/ipv6 for all networks new =
> or old.
>
> Is anyone arguing agains
On Apr 11, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i'd like to pick the easiest problem and
> for that reason i'm urging dual-stack ipv4/ipv6 for all networks new or old.
Is anyone arguing against this? The problem is what happens when there isn't
sufficient IPv4 to do dual stack.
Regards,
-drc
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:30:05 -1000
>
> > unless a market in routing slots appears, there's no way for the direct
> > beneficiaries of deaggregation to underwrite the indirect costs of same.
>
> And that's different from how it's always been in what way?
when 64MB was a
Paul,
On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> David Conrad writes:
>> Growth becoming significantly more expensive is guaranteed. ...
> more expensive for whom, though?
ISPs requiring space will have to pay more and I fully anticipate that cost
will propagate down to end users. In (s
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Part fo the reason folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not
>>> needed. Stop doing the chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice and gives
>>> us tons of more addresses but I can t
David Conrad writes:
>> Growth in IPv4 accessible hosts will stop or become significantly more
>> expensive or both in about 2.5 years (+/- 6 months).
>
> Growth stopping is extremely unlikely. Growth becoming significantly more
> expensive is guaranteed. ...
more expensive for whom, though? i
On Apr 12, 2010, at 12:39 AM,
wrote:
> IPv6 isn't heavily used *currently*, so it may be perfectly acceptable to
> deal with the mythological IPv6 DDoS
The only IPv6-related DDoS attacks of which I'm aware to date is miscreants
going after 6-to-4 gateways in order to disrupt one another's IP
On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Part fo the reason folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not
>> needed. Stop doing the chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice and gives us
>> tons of more addresses but I can tell you V4 is more than two years form
>> "dying" just b
>>
> We've been dealing with the IPV4 myth now for over 7 years that i have
> followed it. It's about as valid as the exaflood myth. Part fo the reason
> folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not needed. Stop doing the
> chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice and gives us tons of
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:31:28 EDT, William Warren said:
> On 4/3/2010 1:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > Given that currently most stuff is dual-stack, and IPv6 isn't totally
> > widespread, what are the effects of doing IPv6 DDoS mitigation by simply
> > turning off IPv6 on your upstream
William Warren writes:
> We've been dealing with the IPV4 myth now for over 7 years that i have
> followed it. It's about as valid as the exaflood myth. Part fo the
> reason folks aren't rushing to the V6 bandwagon is it's not needed. Stop
> doing the chicken little dance folks. V6 is nice an
On 4/3/2010 1:31 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
That adoption is so low at this point
On 4/3/2010 1:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How many p
Jeroen van Aart writes:
> ...
>
> That was at the West Coast Computer Faire in mid-April of 1977, organised
> by Jim Warren of Dr. Dobbs Journal. The first major gather of hobbyists
> and microcomputer companies. Apparently an important moment in the
> microcomputer history.
seems like i saw a
Roland Perry wrote:
There are at least two sources which date the PET to "Winter CES" and
"Jan 1977", but I agree that June CES is where production items would be
first shown; however by then schools were out and my project was
finished (I was studying to be maths teacher).
I thought people m
On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data
>> showing how CGN
>> is more expensive would be very helpful.
>
> It depends.
...
> That math may or may not make sense for your network..
Right. My question was more along
> > Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required
to
> > turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT.
And
> > the running costs of IPv6 are also lower,
>
> Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data
showing how CGN
> is
On 2010.04.05 09:20, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.04.02 19:29, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>> Was looking for the "allocated" file on the ARIN website, but can't
>> remember
>> where it is. They used to have a file with one line per allocation that
>> started
>> like this "arin|US|ipv4". I
On 2010.04.02 19:29, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Majdi S. Abbas"
> To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)"
> Cc: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
>>
Do like the Chinese if you want a feature put out a billion dollar
tender with the feature mandatory and they will rush to do it
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
On 5/04/2010, at 14:48, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:13 PM
> To: Zaid Ali
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> > They are not glowing because applicat
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 04:31:25PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> > a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> > included in the base licence.
Interesting. So much for their "IPv6 doesn't cos
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0700
joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
> > simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
> > more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more ca
On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than IPv4.
Zing, and there you have it! The hourglass is thin
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
>>> laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardwa
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying
around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's
fib being a bit undersized for
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had
> laying around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due
> to it's fib being a bit undersized for 330k routes plus v6, but hey, six
> years is lo
>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU doing IPv6
> has no impact on stuff like BGP convergence.
and, after all, if ipv6 takes off, we plan to throw
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
yep
maybe try is-is
randy
On 4/4/10 2:04 PM, "Vadim Antonov" wrote:
>
>> Zaid
>>
>> P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
>
> I would have thought opposite.
>
It is sometimes helpful to draw lessons from nature and other systems :)
> People who have been on this list longer wou
> Zaid
>
> P.s. Disclaimer: I have always been a network operator and never a dentist.
I would have thought opposite.
People who have been on this list longer would probably remember when I
was playing in this sandbox.
The real wisdom about networks is "never try to change everything and
ever
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> The fact is that lack of fastpath support doesn't matter until IPv6
>> traffic levels get high enough to need the fastpath.
>
> Yeah, fortunately, the fact that your router is burning CPU d
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,We
> need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building
> UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about "vendors" and
> made thing
On 4/4/10 6:44 AM, "Leen Besselink" wrote:
> "Out of the total number of emails received, 14% were received over
> IPv6, the rest over IPv4."
It should be clear that 14% received here is email to RIPE NCC servers. I
don't think we have 14% of SMTP traffic out there coming via IPv6. Actual
SMTP
Owen DeLong wrote:
>It was based on 56kbit lines and the primary applications were
>email, ftp, and telnet.
(you have to have the right Yorkshire accent and Monty Python background
for this...)
56kbit lines? If only we were so lucky...
We had 9600 V.29 synchronous modems!
Synchronous? My g
In article <4bb897a7.60...@consolejunkie.net>, Leen Besselink
writes
>> (I saw a number in the last 2-3 days that 2-3% of spam is now being delivered
>> via SMTP-over-IPv6). You may not need that gear as much as you thought...
>
>This maybe ?:
>http://labs.ripe.net/content/spam-over-ipv6
>
>"Out
> > Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
> > license fee for IPv6 support?
>
> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
> included in the base licence.
>
> Our IPv6
On 04/03/2010 07:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How man
In article <201004041249.o34cnuut078...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco
writes
Some sources claim the PET is later, but I remember it because I was
doing a project on "PCs in Schools" in the spring of 1977, using an
8-bit PC that I had built myself on a patchboard. And the PET arrived
just in time fo
* Michael Dillon
> Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher
> license fee for IPv6 support?
Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
included in the base licence.
Our IP
> In article <207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com>, Owen
> DeLong writes
> >I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
> >out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
> >enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates commodore
In article <207e4e4f-b642-424e-8649-810a589da...@delong.com>, Owen
DeLong writes
I believe the IPv4 classful addressing scheme (which some have pointed
out was the second IPv4 addressing scheme, I wasn't involved early
enough for the first, so didn't remember it) predates commodore, apple,
etc
On 4/3/10 9:12 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Uh, netflix seems fully functional to me on IPv6. What do you think is
> missing?
Functional is the easy part and it seems Netflix has executed that well. I
was implying that the v6 traffic rate might not be quite there yet which is
what we saw with
>> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
>
> and if cash fell from the sky ...
>
> to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with
> ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no
> licensing extortion, ...
>
> we don't
This sounds like
Step 1: I have a wisdom tooth, it hurts on my right jaw and so I will chew
from my left.
Step 2: Take some pain killers.
Step 3: Damn it hurts I will ignore it and it will eventually heal.
Step 4: Continue to take pain killers and perhaps if I sleep more it will
grow in the rig
On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> They are not glowing because applications are simply not moving to IPv6.
> Google has two popular applications on IPv6, Netflix is on it way there but
> what are other application companies doing about it? A popular application
> like e-mail is so far
On Apr 3, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected to the
>> internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the internet would
>> be minicomputers and mainframes.
>
> It took some visionary
On 03/04/10 23:11 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very
simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem:
+1 years.
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source &
destination address. Add handling of t
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source &
> destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Don't IP options translate to "handle in slow path" on various routing
platforms? :)
THat makes "leave backbones un
With all that bitching about IPv6 how come nobody wrote an RFC for a very
simple solution to the IPv4 address exhaustion problem:
Step 1: specify an IP option for extra "low order" bits of source &
destination address. Add handling of these to the popular OSes.
Step 2: make NATs which directl
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
David Barak wrote:
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith
> wrote:
> > To: "George Bonser"
> > > No. But that isn't the point. The point is
> > that v6 was a bad solution
> > > to the problem. Rather than simply address the
> > address depletion
> > > probl
--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Mark Smith
wrote:
> To: "George Bonser"
> > No. But that isn't the point. The point is
> that v6 was a bad solution
> > to the problem. Rather than simply address the
> address depletion
> > problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that
> nobody has while
> > creating a
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
and if cash fell from the sky ...
to folk actually running real networks, 'support' means *parity* with
ipv4, i.e. fast path at decent rates, management and monitoring, no
licensing extortion, ...
we don't have that tod
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 11:25:48 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: legacy
ks glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 20
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
> why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
Or the fact that "sup
mostly to the
for-profits) to find native IPv6 access because it provides an immediate and
direct savings
Frank
-Original Message-
From: James Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:08 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
I suppose if
Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Larry Sheldon
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
> Not often you hear something that has changed just about every aspect of
> life and enabled things that could not be imagined at its outset
> No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solution
> to the problem. Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while
> creating a whole bunch more that we will have.
it's known as "second system syndrome."
> -Original Message-
> From: ma...@isc.org [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:42 AM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> And we would have still had the same problem of intercommunica
On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:25 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> The point is that v6 was a bad solution to the problem.
Well, yes, but...
> Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that nobody has while
> creating a whole bunch more that we will have.
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
>> Just like 640k or memory :)
> But what if I said "640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever need".
> The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for a long time.
> That's a b
In message <5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee08fe6...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com>,
"George Bonser" writes:
> No. But that isn't the point. The point is that v6 was a bad solution
> to the problem. Rather than simply address the address depletion
> problem, it also "solves" a lot of problems that no
> -Original Message-
> From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:26 AM
> To: Larry Sheldon
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: legacy /8
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Larry Sheldon
> -Original Message-
> From: James Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:08 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser
> wrote:
> > Any school tea
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:54 AM
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> That is the parachute's fault?
>
> Really?
> --
No. But that isn't
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030, Mark Smith said:
> going to be enough. I'm not sure why the 32 bit address size was
> persisted with at that point - maybe it was because there would be
> significant performance loss in handling addresses greater than what
> was probably the most common host wo
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> Any school teaching v4 at this point other than as a legacy protocol
> that they teach on the second year because "they might see it in the
> wild" should be closed down. All new instruction that this point should
> begin and end with v6 wit
> Not often you hear something that has changed just about every aspect of
> life and enabled things that could not be imagined at its outset called
> a failure
Sounds like you are describing the Roman Empire. It failed and that's why
we now have an EU in its place.
Things change. Time to move o
On 4/3/2010 12:31, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>
>> On 4/3/2010 10:34, Micha
In message <4bb7621b.9030...@cox.net>, Larry Sheldon writes:
> On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
> >> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed.
> >
> > In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps.
> > At this point, IPv4 has failed,
>
>
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:06:44 EDT, Jeffrey Lyon said:
> For small companies the cost of moving to IPv6 is far too great,
> especially when we rely on certain DDoS mitigation gear that does not
> yet have an IPv6 equivalent.
So? How many people are *realistically* being hit by IPv6 DDoS right now?
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:43 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
> On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
> >> That adoption is so low at this point re
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:48 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
> On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Smith
> [mailto:na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:09 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: John Palmer (NANOG Acct); nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
> Y2K was a bit
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
Just like 640k or memory :)
But what if I said "640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever
need". The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for a
long time. That's a better analogy for IPv6.
IPv6 could have included a larg
On 4/3/2010 10:34, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed.
>
> In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps.
> At this point, IPv4 has failed,
Failed? Really?!!?!
Not often you hear something that has changed just abo
> That adoption is so low at this point really says that it has failed.
In the real world, there is no success or failure, only next steps.
At this point, IPv4 has failed, and IPv6 is the next step. No realistic
alternative next steps exist at present. In addition any alternative
next step to IPv6
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> ipv4 spae is not 'running out.' the rirs are running out of a free
> resource which they then rent to us. breaks my little black heart.
>
> even if, and that's an if, ipv6 takes off, ipv4 is gonna be around for a
> lng while. when 95% of t
In message , jim d
eleskie writes:
> James,
>
> I agree with you concern, and as someone else said the devil is in
> the details, you points are something that would need to be looked at
> if enough people though we should move forward and look at an idea
> like this, which I think we should, bu
47 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
>> On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
>>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
&g
James,
I agree with you concern, and as someone else said the devil is in
the details, you points are something that would need to be looked at
if enough people though we should move forward and look at an idea
like this, which I think we should, but not sure if enough traffic to
start down that
/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>>
>>
>>
>&g
n an RFC? Or, has someone done so for this
> already?
>
> - Original Message - From: "jim deleskie"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:17 PM
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> I'm old but maybe not old nuff to know if this was discussed before or
People use IPv4 because it's cost effective to do so. When I only have
to pay $1250 per year for a /21 there is little incentive to heavily
restrict the use of that space. People are buying dedicated servers
every day with /29 - /24 of space using very questionable
justification and any justificati
A more productive approach might, and I emphasize *might*, be to identify
those allocations which are hijacked and/or in use by dedicated abuse
operations. This would have the desirable side effect of depriving those
operations of resources, however it would also saddle subsequent owners
with the
On 4/3/2010 01:03, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected
>> to the internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the
>> internet would be minicomputers and mainframes.
>
> It took some visionary and creative
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do
> something like this. don't even need to get rid of BGP, just add some
[snip]
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, George Bonser wrote:
[snip]>> and there ya go. Oh, and prob
Owen DeLong wrote:
It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected to the
internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the internet would be
minicomputers and mainframes.
It took some visionary and creative thinking to "come up" with the
internet. But given
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:25:22 -0700
> From: Jeroen van Aart
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
> To: NANOG list
> Message-ID: <4bb66ed2.6080...@mompl.net>
>
> Cutler James R wrote:
> > I also just got a fresh box of popcorn. I will sit by and wait
>
> I hon
On 4/2/2010 21:23, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Anyway, I see it as pretty much moot, since many major players (Comcast,
>> Google, etc) are in the midst of major IPv6 deployments as we speak.
>> Eventually you will have to jump on the bandwagon too. :-)
>>
> clue0: the isp for which i work deployed
t; /8's?
>
> - Original Message - From: "Majdi S. Abbas"
> To: "Jeroen van Aart"
> Cc: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
>> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:01:45PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart
On Apr 2, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 4/2/10 3:01 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>> I am curious. Once we're nearing exhausting all IPv4 space will there
>> ever come a time to ask/demand/force returning all these legacy /8
>> allocations? I think I understand the difficulty in that,
On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>>
>
>
>> So, jump thro
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:06:24 -0700
"George Bonser" wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 7:53 PM
> > To: John Palmer (NANOG Acct); nanog@nanog.org
> > Sub
Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
> >> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
> >> To: nanog@nanog.org
> >> Subject: Re: legacy /8
> >
> >
> >> So, jump through hoops to kludge up IPv4 so it continues to provide
> >> address space for new all
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
