On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:52:09PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is there a way to block html mail at the edge using a proxy ro something?
anything's possible given sufficient resources, but this is not a workable
solution - this needs to be addressed at the client level. Anything else will
DGA Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:10:20 -0400
DGA From: David G. Andersen
DGA a) DHCP'ing everyone is just easier.
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
Alex
[E.B. Dreger writes]
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:
And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
For always assigning the same IP address to a customer? Why would this
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Niels Bakker wrote:
[E.B. Dreger writes]
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:
And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
For always assigning the
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 07:10:38PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Niels Bakker wrote:
[E.B. Dreger writes]
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:
And quadrupple
[E.B. Dreger writes]
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:
And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
[Niels Bakker writes]
For always assigning the same IP address to a
[E.B. Dreger writes]
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:
And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
For always assigning the same IP address to a customer? Why would
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:43:45PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
BUT: I don't think Chris and me were thinking about big bad ugly LANs
with customers attached indiscriminately, though. With DSL provisioning
systmes using RFC1483
That's one way of doing it; a large cable ISP in the Netherlands
required customers to phone in when they had fried their network card.
Nowadays the cable modems handed out to subscribers allow configuration
of this by the end customer.
BUT: I don't think Chris and me were thinking about
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Niels Bakker wrote:
[E.B. Dreger writes]
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:
And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
For always
Alex,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 22:19 CEST]:
My internet no longer works.
Did you blah?
I do not know
Did you blah blah?
I do not know
Did you blah blah blah
Dont you understand? It just does not work. I am going to Verizon. I am
canceling my account
Who was it that said, if you can't identify at least 3 new problems
introduced by any solution, you don't understand the situation?
Or you don't understand ours. After all, it's currently all getting
done already this way.
The question is of specific versus general cases. Not seeing the
`Your' Internet not working is completely orthogonal to my use of DHCP.
What happens to the previous address? Does it get returned to the cusotmer
after his/hers DNS stops working? He does not know that the Static address
that the provider is advertising is as static as the piece of hardware
Alex,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 22:43 CEST]:
What happens to the previous address? Does it get returned to the cusotmer
after his/hers DNS stops working? He does not know that the Static address
that the provider is advertising is as static as the piece of
Ben Buxton wrote:
In europe, when any consumer gets a net connection it's sold as
a pipe to do anything you want with (as long as it abides by laws
and netiquette.
It seems that this silly restrictive mentality will remain even with
ipv6...
In the US, the pipe is limited in any number of ways in
In europe, when any consumer gets a net connection it's sold as
a pipe to do anything you want with (as long as it abides by laws
and netiquette.
That is certainly not the case everywhere in Europe.
In Norway, there are several operators that have limitations on
your use of xDSL, for
Jack Bates Wrote:
In the US, the pipe is limited in any number of ways in attempts to
limit how many people share their broadband with their neighbor at a
reduced rate.
Another issue is that handing out IP addresses to the home at this point
is foolish. User's, in general, can't protect
I have been plotting the IPv6 ASNs for some time. These should be the
ISPs running IPv6. See:
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.html
It would be interesting to see an analysis that combines this data with
Geoff Huston's IPv4 analysis
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:32:39 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been plotting the IPv6 ASNs for some time. These should be the
ISPs running IPv6. See:
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.html
It would be interesting to see an analysis that combines this data with
Geoff
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:21:52AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jack Bates Wrote:
In the US, the pipe is limited in any number of ways in attempts to
limit how many people share their broadband with their neighbor at a
reduced rate.
Another issue is that handing out IP addresses to
Is there a way to block html mail at the edge using a proxy ro something?
Scott Francis wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:21:52AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jack Bates Wrote:
In the US, the pipe is limited in any number of ways in attempts to
limit how many people share their
DGA Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:10:20 -0400
DGA From: David G. Andersen
DGA a) DHCP'ing everyone is just easier.
Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:30:25 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I'd be more interested in seeing how many customer connections
are using IPV6.
This question came up in discussions at IETF-57, without a good answer.
I count 728 /48 entries in the RIPE database. These should correspond
to
Ronald van der Pol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:30:25 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I'd be more interested in seeing how many customer connections
are using IPV6.
This question came up in discussions at IETF-57, without a
good answer.
I count 728 /48 entries in the RIPE
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 15:04:25 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The bad news here, or actually good news, is that many ISP's don't
register their client /48's.
...
Many other tunnelbrokers exist, check for example freenet6, ipv6.he.net
and xs26, who apparently have loads of delegations, these
Ronald van der Pol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 15:04:25 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The bad news here, or actually good news, is that many ISP's don't
register their client /48's.
...
Many other tunnelbrokers exist, check for example freenet6,
-Original Message-
From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ronald van der Pol wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:30:25 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I'd be more interested in seeing how many customer connections
are using IPV6.
This question came up in
Jeroen Massar wrote:
It has a timeline (slides 47-50) showing the US falling behind
for at least 3 years... come on US show what you are good for :)
Show me where there is money to make with IPv6 first :-) There are some
exceptions, but here v6 is somehow like ISDN: I Still Don't Need.
Where is the money in TCP/IP? We have mature, stable, network
technologies
that have proven themselves in the marketplace. TCP/IP is a toy used
by the academic community and will never amount to anything.
-- Arguments I heard against TCP/IP circa 1990.
The US military is starting to demand IPv6
-Original Message-
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:16 PM
To: Jeroen Massar
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: North America not interested in IP V6
Jeroen Massar wrote:
It has a timeline (slides 47-50) showing the US falling behind
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:02:14AM -0600, Irwin Lazar quacked:
As one person noted in response to Christian's speech. If there
is no addressing shortage, why do I have to pay $75 a month for a
DSL connection with a static IP address when a floating IP address
only costs me $40 per month?
I
David G. Andersen wrote:
b) Why do you pay less for a flight with a saturday night stopover?
- Market segmentation. People with static addresses usually
want to do things like run servers, and are probably willing to
pay for the privilege.
And by paying for it, they subsidize the
From: Cougar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Ben Buxton wrote:
And further to this...will it be required (or wise at all)
to register
individual /48 delegations when it becomes commonplace to
allocate them
to standard home users?
[]
Plus, putting in and
Roy wrote:
This article seems to imply that North American networks don't care
about IP V6 while the rest of the world is suffering great hardship
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945119.asp
PS. Please don't shoot the messenger
Regardless of the content of the above, let me say that with the
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:00 AM, Peter Galbavy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Roy wrote:
This article seems to imply that North American networks don't care
about IP V6 while the rest of the world is suffering great hardship
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945119.asp
PS. Please don't shoot the
From: Nipper, Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:00 AM, Peter Galbavy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Regardless of the content of the above, let me say that
with the exception
of the academic community (including those in commercial
orgs) no one in
Europe is
Here at DE-CIX (www.de-cix.net) I can see that more and more ISP are joining
the IPv6 trial (http://www.de-cix.net/info/decix-ipv6/) . Currently already
20% of all ~120 ISP at DE-CIX have IPv6 enabled.
I'd be more interested in seeing how many customer connections
are using IPV6.
Regards,
in fact we (Tiscali) have three customers in Europe that
have their own /32 and are running v6 in parallel to v4, and
we do transit for them. I do not like that 'full table
everywhere' thing at all which is stil way too common in
Europe, it does not help pushing v6.
Ok next question -
]
!Cc: Nipper, Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED],
! Peter Galbavy [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED],
! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!Subject: Re: North America not interested in IP V6
!
!
!Neil, all,
!
!On Wed, 30 July 2003 11:58:34 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
! Here at DE-CIX (www.de-cix.net) I can see
Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!To: Neil J. McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!Cc: Nipper, Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED],
! Peter Galbavy [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED],
! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!Subject: Re: North America not interested in IP V6
!
!
!Neil, all,
!
!On Wed, 30 July 2003 11:58:34 +0100
Does anyone have any experiences with the Cisco IPv6 IOS
(T or S releases)? Can be either good or bad experiences.
I heard there were some issues (router freezes etc) with
the T releases...
In my experience with 12.2(T) the issues were not related to IPv6; I
have been running it for two
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:58:34 +0100 (BST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil J. McRae) wrote:
Here at DE-CIX (www.de-cix.net) I can see that more and more ISP are
joining
the IPv6 trial (http://www.de-cix.net/info/decix-ipv6/) . Currently already
20% of all ~120 ISP at DE-CIX have IPv6 enabled.
]
!Subject: Re: North America not interested in IP V6
!
!
!Neil, all,
!
!On Wed, 30 July 2003 11:58:34 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
! Here at DE-CIX (www.de-cix.net) I can see that more and more ISP are joining
! the IPv6 trial (http://www.de-cix.net/info/decix-ipv6/) . Currently already
! 20
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:21:03AM -0700, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
At work we implimented 12.2(T) on our IPv6 routers and there were some
problems, can't recall specifics now, that meant we did do several IOS
upgrades to try and fix. Now we have just finished upgrading to 12.3 on
all
At 13:59 +0200 7/30/03, Marcel Lemmen wrote:
Well, now we are talking about IPv6, I can ask a question right here ;)
Does anyone have any experiences with the Cisco IPv6 IOS (T or S
releases)? Can be either good or bad experiences. I heard there were some
issues (router freezes etc) with the T
This article seems to imply that North American networks don't care
about IP V6 while the rest of the world is suffering great hardship
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945119.asp
PS. Please don't shoot the messenger
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Roy wrote:
This article seems to imply that North American networks don't care
about IP V6 while the rest of the world is suffering great hardship
Is there any truth to this anyway? Am I too idealistic to believe that
IP numbers will be equally alotted to APNIC, ARIN
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:37:32AM -0700, Roy wrote:
This article seems to imply that North American networks don't care
about IP V6 while the rest of the world is suffering great hardship
http://www.msnbc.com/news/945119.asp
PS. Please don't shoot the messenger
The technical
Is there any truth to this anyway? Am I too idealistic to believe that
IP numbers will be equally alotted to APNIC, ARIN and RIPE and that this
has been the case all along?
I mean, there are certain entities in the US with /8:s and these might
have a specific advantage, but is this really
The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled
phone made me laugh too... although I guess it could be true
- my last 3 mobile phones have all had WAP capability, but I
don't know of anyone that actually uses this feature.
I actually use mine. But it's behind a proxy, as
to v6 NAT'ing may be an issue...
-Original Message-
From: Daryl G. Jurbala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: North America not interested in IP V6
The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled
phone made me
.
Pete
- Original Message -
From: Daryl G. Jurbala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: North America not interested in IP V6
The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled
phone made me laugh too... although I
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Petri Helenius wrote:
The mobile ip address demand is not going to be too great when
a megabyte in most countries costs $10 to $20 to move around.
Over here the monopoly Telcom charges approx $US 0.50 per Megabyte see:
America not interested in IP V6
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Petri Helenius wrote:
The mobile ip address demand is not going to be too great when
a megabyte in most countries costs $10 to $20 to move around.
Over here the monopoly Telcom charges approx $US 0.50 per Megabyte see:
http
54 matches
Mail list logo
