On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are frequent events.
Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and
Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but neither are frequent events.
Cisco's software is not 100% perfect, and when you plug it into moderately
unstable things like phone lines
On 10/02/2009, at 3:20 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
IPv6 it's easier, but you're still limiting the uptime of your
system to
that of the DHCPv6 server. Router advertisements is much more
robust.
'more robust'... except it doesnt' actually get a device into a usable
state without admins
On 11/02/2009, at 10:41 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
It's useless. It does NOT provide enough information alone for a
host to function. In your own words, you need a DNS server. That
is NOT provided by RA thus requires yet another system to get that
bit of configuration to the host -- either
In message op.uo5nvrmrtfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:11:50 -0500, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
Your routers fail frequently? And does your traffic continue to get
forwarded? Perhaps through another router?
More frequently than the DHCP server, but
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:19:37PM -0500, Robert D. Scott wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing a cool new protocol for the Wii
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
NANOG regular to go POSTAL and handle the problem. The solution to many of
these
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Andy Davidson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 07:19:37PM -0500, Robert D. Scott wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing a cool new protocol for the Wii
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
NANOG regular to go POSTAL and handle
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.auwrote:
My issue is that customers have indicated that they feel statics are a
given for IPv6 and this would be a problem if I went from tens of thousands
of statics to hundreds of thousands of static routes (ie. from a
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who feel statics are a given for IPv6 if
they
would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/
all of
them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the
same
question and see if you
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:39:01 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
If you want the machine to always have the same address, either enter
it manually or set your DHCP server to always give it the same address.
Manual configuration doesn't scale. With IPv4, it's quite hard to
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who feel statics are a given for IPv6 if they
would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of
them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same
question
As I read it, you don't want to use DHCP because it's an other service to
fail. Well, what do you think is broadcasting RA's? My DHCP servers have
proven far more stable than my routers. (and one of them is a windows
server
:-)) Most dhcp clients that keep any state will continue using the
In message 00cf01c98b24$efe42680$cfac73...@com, TJ writes:
Also, it is not true in every case that hosts need a lot more than an
address.
In many cases all my machine needs is an address, default gateway and DNS
server (cheat off of v4 | RFC5006 | Stateless DHCPv6).
address + default
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:39:01 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
If you want the machine to always have the same address, either enter it
manually or set your DHCP server to always give it the same address.
Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA
deployments?
One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should
be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
Right now - Cheat off of IPv4's config.
(Lack of DHCPv6
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would anyone NOT want that?? what replaces that option in current RA
deployments?
One nit - I like to differentiate between the presence of RAs (which should
be every user where IPv6 is present) and the use of SLAAC (RA + prefix).
On Feb 7, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 6/02/2009, at 12:00 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
This assignment policy is NOT enough for every particle of sand on
earth, which is what I thought we were getting.
There is enough for 3616 /64s, or 14 /56s per square centimetre of
the earth's
as I've said a few times now, reason #775 that autoconf is a broken and
non-
useful 'gadget' for network operators. There is a system today that does
lots of client-conf (including the simple default-route +
dns-server) called DHCP, there MUST be a similarly featured system in the
'new world
Bill Stewart wrote:
That's not because it's doing dynamic address assignment - it's
because you're only advertising the aggregate route from the
BRAS/DSLAM/etc., and you can just as well do the same thing if you're
using static addresses.
Customers can land on one of a fleet of large BRAS
In message 498bddac.7060...@eeph.com, Matthew Kaufman writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
As I'm sure you know, you can tell the difference between an Internet
David W. Hankins david_hank...@isc.org writes:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:42:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly 15
years.
So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
My comment was regarding customers believing that they were going to, by
default, get a statically allocated range, whatever the length.
If most customers get dynamically assigned (via PD or other means) then
the issue is not a major one.
Dynamic or static;
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Paul Timmins wrote:
John Schnizlein wrote:
Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of using
DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an available name
server by the time IPv6-only networks are in operation.
And if not,
On 6 feb 2009, at 1:15, Ricky Beam wrote:
I see IPv6 address space being carved out in huge chunks for reasons
that equate to little more than because the total space is
inexhaustable. This is the exact same type of mis-management that
plagues us from IPv4's early allocations.
Think of
This is straying from operational to protocol design and implementation,
but as someone who has done a fair bit of both design and implementation...
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem is that DHCP seemed like a good idea at the time but it
doesn't make any sense today. We know that
on seven continents with far more than a 1:1
end user to host ratio.
Jamie
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljit...@muada.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:42 PM
To: Ricky Beam
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com wrote:
Five things? Really? My DHCP server hands out the following things to
its clients:
as I've said a few times now, reason #775 that autoconf is a broken
and non-useful 'gadget' for network operators. There is a system today
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
DHCP(v6). Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going
to be their own statically is insane and will blow out provider's
own routing tables more than is rational.
Routing table size will be a function of the number of customers -
My comment was regarding customers believing that they were going to,
by default, get a statically allocated range, whatever the length.
If most customers get dynamically assigned (via PD or other means)
then the issue is not a major one.
MMC
On 06/02/2009, at 8:56 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:
I think this part of the thread is in danger of leaving the realm of
operational relevance, so I will treat these as my closing arguments.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It makes more sense to look at it like this. In the 1990s we had:
No, I think that
Randy Bush wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing a cool new protocol for the Wii
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is nat compliant?
RFC 3235 discusses how to make your application work in the Internet
reality that exists today, with NAT boxes everywhere. The document is
On 6/02/2009, at 12:00 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
This assignment policy is NOT enough for every particle of sand on
earth, which is what I thought we were getting.
There is enough for 3616 /64s, or 14 /56s per square centimetre of the
earth's surface, modulo whatever we have set aside for
On 6/02/2009, at 1:01 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all
of these
items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC.
Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030,
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming
that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means
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
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
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched onto it and now
accept it and defend it without thinking about is this still the
answer?. Just because it's in an RFC doesn't mean it's
On 5 feb 2009, at 2:20, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of
PD? If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter
drop in a park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
I've tested this years ago and it works just fine. Of
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
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
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 stop
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 noisy
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, 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
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
[...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
address for all of them. I have 2 private /24's using a single public
IPv4 address right
On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
This is the exact same bull as the /8 allocations in the early
days of IPv4.
There are only 256 /8s in IPv4.
There are 72,057,594,037,927,936 /56s in IPv6. If you object to where
you think this is going, then perhaps it's more palatable to
On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
A single /64 isn't enough for a home user, because their gateway is
a router and needs a different prefix at both sides. Users may also
want to subnet their own network. So they need at least something
like a /60.
Mr. van B, your comments would
Joe Abley wrote:
Note that I am not denying the faint aroma of defecation in the air, nor
the ghost of address assignment policies past.
Maybe because by sheer coincidence 2**32 /32 is exactly the same as ipv4
2**32 /32?
Maybe because by sheer coincidence 2**48 /48 is exactly the same
On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...An IPv4 DHCP server gives me five things: ...DNS addresses and a
domain...
==
Actually, lots more than five. E.g., NTP servers, preferred WINS
servers (sorry, AD servers) and many other interesting (to some)
items.
John Schnizlein wrote:
On 2009Feb4, at 8:56 PM, TJ wrote:
However, many do not have DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not
capable.
Maybe upgrades, service packs and updates will make them capable of
using DHCPv6 for useful functions such as finding the address of an
available name server
James R. Cutler wrote:
Actually, lots more than five. E.g., NTP servers, preferred WINS
servers (sorry, AD servers) and many other interesting (to some) items.
And, the DNS domain my laptop joins depends on the network where it is
connected in accordance with business policies in effect.
In message op.uoweo8dxtfh...@rbeam.xactional.com, Ricky Beam writes:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
an IP
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:42:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 22:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for nearly 15
years.
So you were already doing NAT in 1994? Then you were ahead of the curve.
Ahh, the 90s. No need
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:12:19PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
Operationally, this has been met from my experience. In fact, all of these
items are handled with stateless DHCPv6 in coordination with SLAAC.
Stateful DHCPv6 seems to be limited with some vendors, but unless they plan
to do
-Original Message-
From: Sven-Haegar Koch [mailto:hae...@sdinet.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:11 PM
To: John Osmon
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
space (IPv6-MW)]
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44
On 5-Feb-2009, at 16:14, David W. Hankins wrote:
The truth is it is actually not very likely that you can build an
IPv6 network today using DHCPv6, unless you have large populations
of those systems.
The particular example I've been working with is with a JUNOSe server
and an IOS client
In message alpine.deb.2.00.0902060106410@aurora.sdinet.de, Sven-Haegar Ko
ch writes:
If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs,
do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their
firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?
This is falling outside of the IPv6/RFC-1918 discussion, so
I'll only answer questions with questions... If there's need for
a real discussion, I'll let someone change the subject, and continue
on...
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:13AM +0100, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
[...]
The flip side shows up
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 11:36:25AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
Amen brother Mark! Can I get a hallelujah from the chorus?
(Meanwhile, I'll continue to
Leo writes:
Customers don't want static addresses.
They want DNS that works, with their own domain names, forward and
reverse.
They want renumbering events to be infrequent, and announced in
advance.
They want the box the cable/dsl/fios provider to actually work,
that is be able to do really
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:30:12PM -0800, Joe Abley wrote:
The particular example I've been working with is with a JUNOSe server and
an IOS client which, as a solution for business DSL service, seems
deployable.
Yes! Sorry, I just try to emit a little more skepticism about
pervasive client
George William Herbert wrote:
snip beautiful post
Perhaps there are better ways to do all of this from the start.
But IPv6 is not helping any of the ways we have evolved to deal
with it.
snip great ending
IPv6 does just fine with dynamic addressing and with static addressing.
I'm not sure
So it fails in scenarios where enforcing network policy is important.
If the policy is address specific, perhaps.
If the policy is segment specific, no prob.
/TJ
PS - for emphasis, I am not arguing strictly for or against either SLAAC or
DHCPv6.
Both can work, and IMHO should be allowed to do
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2 laptops, a Wii, 3
tivos, a router, and an access point?
You have more computing power in your house than the Fortune 500 did 40
years ago to manage their entire billing, payroll etc.
They had
Wii should not even consider developing a cool new protocol for the Wii
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is nat compliant?
randy
Randy Bush wrote:
Wii should not even consider developing a cool new protocol for the Wii
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6.
what is nat compliant?
Quite unfortunately, that has come to mean something. Specifically, TCP
or UDP (and no other IP protocol numbers) and application
Mark Andrews wrote:
WII's should be able to be directly connected to the network
without any firewall. If they can't be then they are broken.
As I'm sure you know, you can tell the difference between an Internet
evangelist and someone who mans the support lines by how they
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
each cable modem a /64?
That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
discussion about it on the
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And before anyone says there are 281474976710656 /48s!, just
remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
bet when someone said four-point-two BILLION addresses, someone else
said no $...@#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many
Let's face
In message 498a3514.1050...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And before anyone says there are 281474976710656 /48s!, just
remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
bet when someone said four-point-two BILLION
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing
Mark Andrews wrote:
Assign the prefixes using PD and use aggregate routes out side of the pop.
IPv6 nodes are designed to be renumbered. Use the technology. Stop thinking
IPv4 and start thinking IPv6. IPv6 is not just IPv4 with bigger addresses.
Currently with v4 I have one
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:41:01 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
And ARP tables are propogated around networks? No, they're local to a
router.
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being clear:
As I posted just before in reply to MarkA - I'm
In message 498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems. A /64 isn't
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being clear:
As I posted
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 498a3ca5.6060...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.au wrote:
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
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
On 5/02/2009, at 2:28 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise
all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it
is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
My apologies for not being
On 5/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Far too many people see NAT as synonymous with a firewall so they
think
if you take away their NAT you're taking away the security of a
firewall.
A *lot* of these problems we face are conceptual rather than
technological.
For more, refer
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Well, it is static, but like most static IP services offerd by an ISP,
if you leave you can't take your addresses with you. Even with DSL from
ATT if you move locations you get a different subnet.
The issue is multiple POPs in a geographic region where customers could
In message 498a40c1.8060...@internode.com.au, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
Anthony Roberts wrote:
I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the
prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and
then delegate chunks out of that.
-- m...@internode.com.au wrote:
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft m...@internode.com.au
Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD?
If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a
park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
In message f1dedf9c0902041735x4a9cb6f9nc5b5bbf1201a2...@mail.gmail.com, Scott
Howard writes:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
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
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
Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
of problems.
Perhaps, time moves ever forward.
A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6). Setting
the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own statically
is
insane and will blow out provider's
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have to
implement that.
Then work with them to break them of this dis-illusion.
I'm
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem with routing table size
TJ wrote:
However, many do not have DHCPv6 ... WinXP, MacOS, etc. are not capable.
Also - does DHCPv6 currently have an option for prefix length? Just asking.
I'm under no allusion that a /64 is going to be optional - it's really
too late which is sad. I think people have just latched
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew
Moyle-Croft wrote:
My FEAR is that people (customers) are going to start assuming that v6
means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
This means that I have a problem
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
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.auwrote:
but my point was
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!).
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
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
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and will
blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the regional
ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/customer routes
in BGP, and I have not noticed anything
On 4-Feb-2009, at 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
I see people predicting that giving everybody a /56 is insane and
will blow out routing tables. I don't quite understand that; at the
regional ISP with which I am most familiar 40,000 or so internal/
97 matches
Mail list logo
