On Thursday 05 February 2009 04:31:28 Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > I am beginning to be worried that no one [has|is willing to divulge]
> > that they have accomplished this . One would think that someone would
> > at least pipe up just for the bragging factor .
>
> The thread seemed long and noi
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:22:43 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft said:
> Telling customers "well, you might get renumbered randomly" isn't going
> to work, no matter what the theory about it all is. They do crazy and
> unexpected things and bleat about it even if you told them not to. At
> worse they
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So how do you plan on doing that?
It works fine to my house.
We know that IPv6 runs really well over regular ethernet or over
tunnels. It doesn't work so well over the weird crap that broadband ISPs
use which superficially looks like ethernet or PPP but isn't (and
On 5 feb 2009, at 5:29, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I'm meant to have 250,000 customers running it by Christmas!
So how do you plan on doing that?
We know that IPv6 runs really well over regular ethernet or over
tunnels. It doesn't work so well over the weird crap that broadband
ISPs use w
>Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS/Cable vendors are upto - I
don't
>think anyone could have. (Cisco won't have high end v6 pppoe support until
>late this year!).
Indeed, that is a big part of the problem in the home-user space.
>There's a lot of people who clearly don't work for ISPs
Scott Howard wrote:
> > And that brings us back to the good old catch-22
> > of ISPs not supporting IPv6 because consumer CPE doesn't support it,
> > and CPE not supporting it because ISP don't...
No, it's because neither need to do it. If they did the apparent
catch-22 would be fixed
Matthew Moy
I am told that juniper have just released their E series code to do
hitless failover and ipv6cp at the same time.
If you are not running hitless it has been working for some time.
Apologies if this message is brief, it is sent from my cellphone.
On 5/02/2009, at 17:29, Matthew Moyle-Croft
Hmm,
Apologies for that - wasn't meant to goto the list. Was a bit "frank".
MMC
On 05/02/2009, at 2:59 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Hi James,
I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.
I've had basically nothing from anyone.
Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS
Hi James,
I don't think anyone really has done it large scale properly.
I've had basically nothing from anyone.
Given my knowledge of where most large BRAS/Cable vendors are upto - I
don't think anyone could have. (Cisco won't have high end v6 pppoe
support until late this year!).
There'
Hello Matthew , See way below ...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
wrote:
but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
What happens when a customer wants to run multiple networks is
something I
haven't seen answered yet - with NAT it's easy, but as I said, NAT is
apparently evil...
You give them more than a /64.
RFC4291 says that it should be a /48, but people
Scott Howard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean
static allocations for all customers.
By design IPv6 should mean _less_
In message , Scott
Howard writes:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
> > IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem,
> > then we may very well be recreating the
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
> IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable modem,
> then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
v4 just gets a single IP addr
14 matches
Mail list logo
