On 18.10 10:48, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Asking the whole internet to support 240/4 is going to tie up
valuable resources that would be far better off working on IPv6. Keep
in mind that it's not just software patches. Software vendors don't do
stuff for free. I doubt ISPs are going to
While traveling home via phx last night their free wireless was using
1.1.1.1 as the web auth portal. Perhaps this means that 1/8 is tainted
as well?
Leo Vegoda mentioned this at the last UKNOF meeting:
http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof8/Vegoda-Unallocated.pdf
Cheers,
Rob
On 18 Oct 2007, at 15:09, Rob Evans wrote:
While traveling home via phx last night their free wireless was using
1.1.1.1 as the web auth portal. Perhaps this means that 1/8 is
tainted
as well?
Leo Vegoda mentioned this at the last UKNOF meeting:
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact injection.
This very morning, I have done some simple research. My research focused
on the question, what if 240/4 were released for use on the public
Internet.
I am not interested in the question of what if 240/4 were released for
Please don't try to engineer other people's networks because they are
not going to listen to you. It is a fact that 240/4 addresses work fine
except for one line of code in IOS, MS-Windows, Linux, BSD, that
explicitly disallows packets with this address. People have already
provided patches
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact injection.
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have been
On 17 Oct 2007, at 20:55, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
well.. the problem of course is that you pull in the traffic from
the aggregate transit prefix which costs you $$$ but then you
offload it to the
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
The ROI on the move to v6 is immense compared to the ROI on the move
to v4-240+, which will surely only benefit a few.
I am told by people who have inside knowledge that one of the issues
they are facing in deploying IPv6 is that an IPv6
Wow,, that's pretty heavy.. I understand and can appreciate the passion
involved with this topic. But Ladies and gentlemen, please lets keep it
civil ok.. In some way, shape or form we are all in this together.. Some
may be less informed then others, or perhaps a difference in opinion or
point of
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have been patched to support 240/4.
On 18 Oct 2007, at 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact
injection.
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the
literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
1) Does anyone else find this flaw in the DNS system
as annoying as I do? If authority is to be regularly
moved around between ISPs (who may be hosting thousands
As an operator of both free and paid DNS services, I wish there was a
quick and easy way to pull a list of all of the zones that
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Anyone care to guess how much network gear is deployed that either
won't or can't be upgraded? i.e. Old cisco gear without the RAM and/or
flash to handle a newer code train...the old one in use long since
unsupported, or gear from vendors that no longer
This report used to be quite useful in that regard:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html
Perhaps Rob needs a coffee injection to get that going again?
(BTW: Need/want some more of our famous Colo Blend Mr. Thomas?)
--chuck
On 10/18/07 12:53 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could see bits of 240/4 perhaps being of use to large cable companies
for whom there just isn't enough 1918 space to address all their CPE
gear...and/or they really want unique addressing so that if/when networks
merge IP
On 10/18/07, Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/07 12:53 PM, Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could see bits of 240/4 perhaps being of use to large cable companies
for whom there just isn't enough 1918 space to address all their CPE
gear...and/or they really want unique
Okay, this has descended to a point where we need some fact injection.
You get a D on those facts because you did not review the literature,
did not attempt reasonable coverage of the problem space, and did not
investigate whether or not there were other versions of the software
that have
On 10/18/07 2:17 PM, Brandon Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Alain,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Comcast started moving to IPv6 addressing
*because* they ran out of 10. space.
Absolutely. I made the point earlier, making 240/4 work is about the same
order of magnitude as moving to
Scott Weeks wrote:
I have seen a LOT of that equipment out there in places like universities and
whatnot.
Eventually this stuff falls out of the internet or gets consigned to
roles where it can't do much in the way of damage. The timescale over
which this happens is extremely long. ipv4
Justin Scott wrote:
I suppose the problem with having an official list to query would be
getting all of the various registries to participate and keep it
regularly updated. I personally qualify this as a slight inconvenience,
but I'm not sure I would call it a flaw in the DNS system.
If we
Hi, Chuck!
This report used to be quite useful in that regard:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html
Perhaps Rob needs a coffee injection to get that going again?
Oh, my, I'd totally forgotten about that report. I do need to get
that going again. I'll dig around now to see what we can
Consider an auto company network. behind firewalls and having
thousands and thousands of robots and other factory floor machines.
Most of these have IPv4 stacks that barely function and would never
function on IPv6. One company estimated that they needed 40 million
addresses for this
On 10/18/07 2:24 PM, Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, though, I have a better solution. Let's ask the IETF to revise
an RFC, and define the first octet of an IPv4 address as being from 0-
65535. That's asking the IETF to revise an RFC, too, such request being
just as
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
On 17 Oct 2007, at 20:55, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
well.. the problem of course is that you pull in the traffic from the
aggregate transit prefix which costs you $$$ but then you
Justin Scott wrote:
As an operator of both free and paid DNS services, I wish there was a
quick and easy way to pull a list of all of the zones that were
delegated to a specific IP address. I say IP because people can now
register their own DNS name servers at the registrar and use our IP
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
The ROI on the move to v6 is immense compared to the ROI on the move
to v4-240+, which will surely only benefit a few.
I am told by people who have inside knowledge that one of the issues
they are facing in deploying IPv6 is that an
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:58 MDT, Alain Durand said:
Or simply ask IANA to open up 256/5. After all, this is just an entry in a
table, should be easy to do, especially if it is done on Apr 1st. ;-)
And to think that we all laughed at Eugene Terrell
pgp1oANR5GLQa.pgp
Description: PGP
How annoying or frustrating is it for people?
Is it so annoying that you'd be willing to pay for
a list of every public-facing NS record pointed at
a given IP?
Nope. As I mentioned earlier, I qualify this as a minor inconvenience
on the servers that I manage. It may be for someone who
Justin Scott wrote:
We also have home-grown scripts that figure out whether a domain is
delegated to us or not and flag the ones that aren't. In the case of
the free service we flag them for two weeks and if they still aren't
delegated to us after that period we disable them on the DNS servers
Consider an auto company network. behind firewalls and having
thousands and thousands of robots and other factory floor machines.
Most of these have IPv4 stacks that barely function and would never
function on IPv6. One company estimated that they needed 40 million
addresses for
Or simply ask IANA to open up 256/5. After all, this is just an entry in a
table, should be easy to do, especially if it is done on Apr 1st. ;-)
DOH! Point: you.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule.
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux and FreeBSD and were able
to freely use 240/4 address space to communicate between
Thus spake Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The operators who want to do something private with this space don't need
the IETF or IANA approval to do so. So they should just go
ahead and do it. If they can manage to get it to work, and live to tell
about it, maybe we can consider that
I hadn't intended to post any further replies, but given the source and
the message here, felt this warranted it:
Compared to the substantial training (just getting NOC monkeys to understand
hexidecimal can be a challenge), back office system changes, deployment
dependencies, etc. to use
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The operators who want to do something private with this space don't need
the IETF or IANA approval to do so. So they should just go
ahead and do it. If they can manage to get it to work, and live to tell
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
So is this a statement that Cisco is volunteering to provide free binary
patches for its entire product line? Including the really old stuff
that happens to be floating around out there and still in use?
Considering there's forklift upgrades required
unsubscribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Ulevitch) writes:
I should also mention the related work starting over here:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Vixie-lightning.pdf
indeed. while i don't have even a tenth of the analysis expertise of someone
like robt, wessels, florian, or april, i am most
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:00:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux and
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Drew Weaver wrote:
Anyone else having major difficulty with service with ICG/Level3
circuits in Ohio/Cleveland? We've had a circuit down for 10 hours and
just two hours ago they notified us that they're having a major outage
in our region and have not provided
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Jack Bates said:
We use home-grown scripts to follow the NS trail and verify that we are
I do something similar with a nagios plugin (perl script). It
reports lameness and serial mismatch. I've put it online here:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:48:00AM -0600, Alain Durand wrote:
240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to make it work is
good, but the reality is that there are tons of equipment that do not
support it. Deploying a large network with 240/4 is a problem of the same
scale as
why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux and FreeBSD and were able
to freely use 240/4 address space to communicate
Consider an auto company network. behind firewalls and having
thousands and thousands of robots and other factory floor
machines.
Most of these have IPv4 stacks that barely function and would never
function on IPv6. One company estimated that they needed
40 million
Joe,
On Oct 18, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Fixing devices so that they can accept 240/4 is a software fix
that can be done with a binary patch and no additional memory. And
there are a _lot_ of these devices.
Sure, I agree there are. How does that number compare to the
number of
Guys, this thread has gone over 50 posts, and doesn't seem to want to end.
By now, everyone has had a chance to advance their argument (at least
once), and we are just going in circles, increasing noise and not
contributing to signal.
I'd like to summarize arguments advanced - and if you don't
I think Michael's point is that it can be allocated as
unique space for internal use. i.e. kind of like 1918
space, but you know your slice of
240/4 is only used on your network[1]. For that purpose,
it's fine, as long as you determine that all your gear allows it.
Not quite. I don't
The correct way to change a delegation is to:
* add the new servers as stealth servers for the
current zone.
* if the old master is to be removed, make it a slave
of the new master.
* add the new NS records to the zone.
* wait for all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Lewinski) writes:
Justin Scott wrote:
I suppose the problem with having an official list to query would be
getting all of the various registries to participate and keep it
regularly updated. I personally qualify this as a slight inconvenience,
but I'm not sure
unsubscribe nanog
Anyone else having major difficulty with service with ICG/Level3
circuits in Ohio/Cleveland? We've had a circuit down for 10 hours and just two
hours ago they notified us that they're having a major outage in our region and
have not provided __any__ further information.
TIA,
-Drew
51 matches
Mail list logo
