Forgive me for not having more technical information about this issue.
Beginning sometime around 4:00 PM MST on Saturday, I started seeing
horrible slowness on my home Internet connection through Comcast, and I
also noticed that I was seeing numerous timeouts on DNS lookups. At the
same time, a
British Telecom will acquire Infonet Services in a deal
worth $965 million, BT said Monday.
http://news.com.com/British+Telecom+to+buy+Infonet/2100-1037_3-5442816.html?tag=cd.top
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL
: From: Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
: Date: Mon Nov 08 14:05:49 2004
:
: British Telecom will acquire Infonet Services in a deal worth $965
: million, BT said Monday.
:
:
http://news.com.com/British+Telecom+to+buy+Infonet/2100-1037_3-5442816.html?tag=cd.top
I wonder if they'll do any better than
I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue
that I think is slipping under the radar right now.
The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 private networks. Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined
for the IPv6 world. Those two drafts
On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In the end I think we need 1918 style space, and that it should
simply be set aside as a large block and expected to never be
useful in the context of other organizations, just like 1918
space is today.
Just out of interest, why do you
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is
needed?
I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
that it is likely they would want to migrate those applications as
On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:53, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe
Abley wrote:
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is
needed?
I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
that it is likely they would
Would NAT be considered an application? :-)
- ferg
-- Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be
deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:08:13PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be
deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
By applications I did not mean software programs but rather
methods of designing
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
Perhaps the non-availability of RFC1918 addresses would provide a useful
incentive for future v6 network architects to install globally-unique
addresses on all hosts? Perhaps I am the only one that thinks that would be a
good thing ;-)
You're definitely not
Hello,
I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6 addressing
nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never understood why we needed
a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space. Wouldn't 0::10.0.0.0/104,
0::192.168.0.0/112, and 0::172.16.0.0/116 (or whatever the
I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6
addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.
because there is not enough v6 address space?
because we like nats?
because we think we can't get
At 02:36 PM 11/8/2004, you wrote:
On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In the end I think we need 1918 style space, and that it should
simply be set aside as a large block and expected to never be
useful in the context of other organizations, just like 1918
space is today.
Hello,
I am wondering if somebody can point me to the links where I can found
information about Content Delivery Network Solutions used in the
market today. I need to know about the technology and how the
solution/company (such as Akamai) caters its customers. Do they mirror
the content across
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:04:28PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6
addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.
because there is not enough v6
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:46:05PM -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
Reason #3: A separate set of blocks should be set aside for use ONLY in
documentation.
inet6num: 2001:0DB8::/32
netname: IPV6-DOC-AP
descr:IPv6 prefix for documentation purpose
[...]
remarks: This address
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
Reason #1: Lab use. People should NEVER, EVER pick random space from public
space for doing experiments in the lab. Sooner or later something leaks, and
people get really honked off. This happened a LOT with IPv4, prior to RFC
1597 and 1918. Let's not
I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects of v6
addressing nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
understood why we needed a new set of RFC1918-like IPv6 space.
because there is not enough v6 address space?
because we like nats?
There's no PI (yet) for
On 8-nov-04, at 11:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Apparently not, as this isn't the right address for
k.gtld-servers.net.
Well - how / where did you get an IP in Hanaro Telecom, Korea space
for k.gtld-servers.net?
DNS cache poisoned or something?
Apparently. I don't manage the box in
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Leo Bicknell writes:
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wr=
ote:
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is=20
needed?
I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
that it is
I have some additional information that's making me think what I saw on
Saturday was just a coincidence. We have two DNS servers that were
unable to resolve external addresses beginning around 4:00 PM MST on
Saturday, but I found out that they both had just been rebooted. We use
some version of
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, M. Huda wrote:
: market today. I need to know about the technology and how the
: solution/company (such as Akamai) caters its customers. Do they mirror
: the content across their server's network? If this is the case then
: how a request is directed to the closest and
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:25:00PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the
global Internet.
Well, thinking about
On 8-nov-04, at 20:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I will post a very brief summary of my objections, for the first
(unique-local):
- I believe the math is wrong on the rate of collisions, primarily
because it assumes in a large organization there is a central
coordination function to pick
-Original Message-
From: Eric Gauthier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
Hello,
I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects
of v6 addressing
nor have I read the drafts you posted, but I've never
At 3:37 PM -0500 11/8/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In
That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by
the IESG.
With due respect to my colleague Steve, I think this depends on what not very
different from means. I'm
is very unwise. One of the problems with site local was the prefix got
allocated but the work on what it would mean never got full community
support. Doing the same thing twice just strikes me as dumb.
do you mean 1918 twice or site-loco twice? both are stoopid.
either is stoopid. it'll
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 10:46:48PM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
Well, if they can manage to interconnect all those networks a tiny
amount of coordination isn't too much to ask for. Also, with the proper
hashing this shouldn't be much of a problem even without
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ted Hardie writes:
At 3:37 PM -0500 11/8/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In
That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by
the IESG.
With due respect to my colleague Steve, I think this depends
At 04:17 PM 11/8/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
Reason #1: Lab use. People should NEVER, EVER pick random space from
public space for doing experiments in the lab. Sooner or later something
leaks, and people get really honked off. This happened a LOT with IPv4,
Leo Bicknell wrote:
I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue
that I think is slipping under the radar right now.
The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 private networks. Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined
for the IPv6 world.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:56:58PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
To all of us happily using ip4 does ipv6 offer anything valuable other
than more space?
Depends on who you are.
Do net admins who dread troubleshooting real networks with
unrecognizable and unmemorizable addresses exist?
I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be
deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
and statically
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
Forgive me for not having more technical information about this issue.
Beginning sometime around 4:00 PM MST on Saturday, I started seeing
horrible slowness on my home Internet connection through Comcast, and I
also noticed that I was seeing numerous
On 8 Nov 2004, at 18:18, Adi Linden wrote:
I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be
deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses.
[one reasonable use]
Yes, I mentioned that in the
Hay,
Daniel Roesen wrote:
[...]
Personally, I just wait for people to realize that they won't be
able to force people into provider lock-in, allow one PI prefix per
AS and THEN things can go off. With that, the global IPv6 table
would be around 18k routes btw. As IPv4 and ASN are virtually
I need to know about the technology and how the solution/company (such as
Akamai) caters its customers. Do they mirror the content across their
server's network? If this is the case then how a request is directed to
the closest and lightly loaded server on Internet? There are other
hardware
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is
needed?
If we could assign every entity who wanted one sufficient non-routable,
globally unique space, we wouldn't need 1918-style space. There are,
however, three problems with this approach:
1) It encourages
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:25:00PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the
global Internet.
Well, thinking about
2) There is a cost associated with assigning globally-unique space no
matter how you do it. This cost could be too high for some application --
RFC-1918-style space is free.
you want unique space but not pay for the administration
of it. absolutely brilliant.
3) There is a
Someone at Forrester research wrote an article in 2003 that said FCAPS was
an obsolete model because
it was conceived during a time when mainframes were in use. I haven't
read the article but the
premise of it seemed a bit overboard to me.
Does the FCAPS model still hold currency among
To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large
the total space is or what the size of the routing table is. What
matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address
space, and what you need to use it for. A guarantee of global
uniqueness has an
At 10:10 PM 11/8/2004, Randy Bush wrote:
To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large
the total space is or what the size of the routing table is. What
matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address
space, and what you need to use it for. A
[snip]
I dont understand much about ipv6. Yes I am now internationaly
recognized for the ipv6 noob and loser that I am.
What I do know is that ostensibly we need it due to address shortage.
Its also easy to see that a entire trainload of new technology has been
hitched up to that wagon.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Status of FCAPS model? Useful? Obsolete?
Someone at Forrester research wrote an article in 2003 that
said FCAPS was
an obsolete
On 8 Nov 2004, at 22:53, Daniel Senie wrote:
Is it SO hard for people to understand that it's possible today to use
private address space and public address space in a network WITHOUT
using NAT?
I think the hard thing to understand is why you would bother using 1918
space if you didn't have
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:14 AM
To: Daniel Senie
Cc: Randy Bush; kent crispin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
On 8 Nov 2004, at 22:53, Daniel
I'm not sure why the proposal wouldn't block off some space to
cover unforseen circumstances and leave it at that.
uh, 7/8 of the ipv6 space is currently blocked off for unforseen
circumstances. like a place to move after we have made as much
of a bleedin' mess of fp=001 as we have of ipv4
From: Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:54:39 -0500
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:52 PM
[...snip...]
Does the FCAPS model still hold currency among network
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Does the FCAPS model still hold currency among network
managers/engineers
today?
What's FCAPS?
I suppose that answers the question whether FCAPS holds currency
among network managers/engineers.
It is an ITU-T developed network management
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 14:53 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley
wrote:
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is
needed?
I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
that it is
51 matches
Mail list logo
