On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:05 AM Paul Timmins wrote:
> On 3/31/22 11:38, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote:
> > However, perhaps someone would care to elaborate (either on or off-list)
> what the deal is with the requirement to sign NDAs with Cogent before
> they'll discuss things like why they still
> On Mar 29, 2022, at 17:51 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> As I repeatedly pointed out, end to end NAT is clean preserving
>>> the universal peer to peer nature of the Internet.
>> Nope… It really isn’t.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> The problem of audit trail opacity is still a
It's illegal to prevent employees from discussing salary. Are you saying Cogent
is doing unlawful things?
Ray Orsini
Chief Executive Officer
OIT, LLC
305.967.6756 x1009 | 305.571.6272
r...@oit.co | www.oit.co
oit.co/ray
How are we doing? We'd love to hear your feedback.
--- Original Message ---
On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 16:43, Joe Greco wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:38:15PM +, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote:
>
> Because they know that the sillier bits will be poked fun at on NANOG
>
> if they allow them to be disclosed?
>
The ironic
In short:
Amazon
Alibaba
Google Cloud
And a few other laggards that are key destinations that a lot of eyeball
customers expect to be
able to reach.
Owen
> On Mar 29, 2022, at 13:53 , Jacques Latour wrote:
>
> So, in 25, 50 or 100 years from now, are we still going
On 3/31/22 11:38, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote:
However, perhaps someone would care to elaborate (either on or off-list) what
the deal is with the requirement to sign NDAs with Cogent before they'll
discuss things like why they still charge for BGP, or indeed any other
technical or pricing
I've used Cogent for years and have never been asked to sign an NDA with
them.
Of the 4 providers I use regularly they are the second highest price so
I wouldn't consider them cheap any more either.
There's no better or worse than any transit provider these days.
Aaron
On 3/31/2022 10:38
On 3/31/22 8:40 AM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
3) So, it is possible that the site with the reported "PoE induced"
issues may be somehow experiencing the above related phenomena. This
kind of situations are almost impossible to duplicate at another site.
It has to be diagnosed with pains-taking
Want to give credit to 3356, after I contacted them they eliminated all of the
bad routes coming in via legacy Global Crossing.
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Job Snijders
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:33 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: Re: A few questions
I recently cancelled a circuit with them that began life as transit and
converted to P2P, where the BGP fee never disappeared, and had been fighting
them on it for eight months. Now that the circuit is gone they've switched to
completely ignore mode. So, not likely I'll use them again. I did
BR support is maturing nicely. A few other vendors with implementations:
Arista -
https://www.arista.com/en/support/toi/eos-4-24-0f/14495-map-t-border-relay
Nokia -
https://infocenter.nokia.com/public/7750SR140R4/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.sr.msisa%2Fhtml%2Fnat.html
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:36 AM Jacques Latour
wrote:
> Exactly what I was asking, when and how will we collectively turn off the
> lights on IPv4?
>
Working on the World IPv6 Launch {day|week|forever} efforts,
I noticed an interesting pattern of companies that put up IPv6
resources, with all
VIDEO | New Episode of "Internet Innovators"
*Kleinrock Tells His Story + History of the Internet *
Kleinrock's story begins on the streets of Harlem, where he credits his
ability to see the world "without pretense" and how this ideology has
influenced his research.
*Watch the full episode to
On 3/29/22 5:21 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:
* APs today snoop DHCP; DHCP is observable and stateful, with a lifetime that
allows to clean up. So snooping it is mostly good enough there. The hassle is
the SL in SLAAC which causes broadcasts and is not deterministically
Hi Mark and all:
Indeed, we have a plethora of IPv4 encapsulation and 4-to-6 techniques.
I read somewhere down the threads that we (at IETF) made a "stupendously" bad
bet thinking that IPv6 would be generalized quickly thanks to those techniques.
Being partially guilty of that (e.g., but not
No.
I have already forgotten that SDH did exist (and yes, I remember X.25 - I have
operated X.25 network).
I was talking in the next message about 100GE.
In fact, the situation would be similar for 10E too.
Ed/
-Original Message-
From: NANOG
Fun, I had a parallel experience with NEMO that I implemented in IOS.
But I mostly read the fate of MIP and NEMO as a lack of ask. Which is similar
to the lack of desire today for the uplifts we made to IPv6 as a whole, and ND
in particular.
Anyway, RPL has a lot to do with what we learned
Exactly what I was asking, when and how will we collectively turn off the
lights on IPv4?
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On
> Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: March 30, 2022 7:29 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: [EXT] Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6
> still not
Hi Eduard
And SDN, and overlays, and... I certainly agree with what you're saying.
This is why the L3 tech has to keep evolving as a survival trait. It's a
delicate balance between evolving too quickly and producing the impression on
unstable tech in the one hand, and stalling in the
Hi, Colleagues:
0) I would like to share a personal experience of a different setting
to offer an angle for looking into this puzzling topic.
1) During my graduate study, I was doing microwave experiments in the
laboratory. On a six foot bench, I had a series (maybe a dozen or so) of
On 3/31/22 7:44 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
[heavy sigh]
All of these things were well understood circa 1992-93.
That's why the original Neighbor Discovery was entirely link state.
ND link state announcements handled the hidden terminal problem.
Also, it almost goes without saying that
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in 1992-1994
that:
- Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997) and wireless would
emulate multicast so badly (hi SLAAC)
- Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have a big
additional cost to
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:38:15PM +, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote:
> However, perhaps someone would care to elaborate (either on or off-
> list) what the deal is with the requirement to sign NDAs with Cogent
> before they'll discuss things like why they still charge for BGP, or
> indeed any
Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
IMHO: IETF is only partially guilty. Who was capable to predict in
1992-1994 that:
- Wireless would become so popular (WiFi is from 1997)
IP mobility WG of IETF was formed in 1992.
- Hardware forwarding (PFE) would be invented (1997) that would have
a big
Don't sigh! You envisioned it and we built it, William.
We have IPv6 mesh networks with thousands on nodes per mesh deployed around
you. The standard is called WI-SUN. WI-SUN totals millions of nodes deployed in
North America; so what you described cannot not only be envisioned as you did,
it
Hi all, would love to get any current opinions (on or off list) on the
stability of Arista’s BGP implementation these days. Been many years since I
last looked into it and wasn’t ready for a change yet. Past many years have
been IOS XR on NCS5500 platform and Arista everywhere but the edge.
Dear Colleagues:
0) I would like to summarize this thread of discussion with the
following:
1) It has been well-known in democracy that too much emphasis on
"majority consensus" may not be really good for the intended goal. For
example, if the general opinions in the ancient time
Hmmm
Spring has sprung and the waft of drivel from a new season Cogent salesdroid
filled my telephone earpiece today.
I've never liked the Cogent way of business and my understanding of their IP
transit is that it falls into the "cheap for a reason" category.
However, perhaps someone
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
You're perfectly correct. This is exactly what the registration would
be for. I'm concerned about its adoption that I do not see coming on
Wi-Fi/ Ethernet, even for v6 (SLAAC) where the problem is a lot
worse*.
You can't expect people still working primarily
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 09:16 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible
>> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at
>> least 2015.
>>
>> Well… It’s a consensus
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>> seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>>
>
> That is not an accurate statement.
>
> The
Matthew Petach wrote:
Unfortunately, the reason crazy-long prepends actually propagate so
widely in the internet core is because most of those decisions to prefer
your peer's customers are done using a relatively big and heavy hammer.
IOW if your peer or customer has prepended 5 times or
You have to try running IPv6 only occasionally to weed out the dependencies.
You can do this on a per node basis. Just turn off the IPv4 interface and see
how you run. I do this periodically on my Mac and disable IPv4. This also
makes my recursive nameserver IPv6 only as well. You then see
Joe Provo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:08:01AM +0300, Paschal Masha wrote:
:) probably the longest prepend in the world.
A thought though, is it breaking any standard or best practice procedures?
That said, prepending pretty much anything more than your current view
of the Internet's
Matthew Petach wrote:
In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without
also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 08:09 , Jared Brown wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>>>
>>> Out of interest, how would this come about?
>>
>> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services.
>
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 10:09 , Jared Brown wrote:
>
> Randy Carpenter wrote:
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>>>
>>> Out of interest, how would this come about?
>>
>> ISPs are facing ever
The Last Days Of Mariupol’s Internet
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2022/03/31/the-last-days-of-mariupols-internet/
"Engineers who kept Ukraine’s port city online have gone missing or died
in the carnage inflicted by Russia’s siege. Hope remains that Ukrainian
cities knocked
On 2022-03-31, at 20:54, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> And yet, in order to "turn off the lights on IPv4", we're going to have to
> root through all those dark corners of code
The part that you might be missing is that those dark corners are also where
the vulnerabilities hide.
If a piece of
…in a run-of-the-mill web hoster?
This is really a question specifically for folks with web-site-hosting
businesses.
If you had, say, ten million web site customers, each with their own unique
domain name, how many IPv4 addresses would you think was a reasonable number to
host those on? HTTP
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 15:32 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>>
>> In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4
>> somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4
>> address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 16:47 , Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 1, 2022, at 12:15 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> …in a run-of-the-mill web hoster?
>> I’m happy to take private replies and summarize/anonymize back to the list,
>> if people prefer.
>
> I asked the same question on Twitter,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 3:16 PM Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Joe Provo wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:08:01AM +0300, Paschal Masha wrote:
> >> :) probably the longest prepend in the world.
> >>
> >> A thought though, is it breaking any standard or best practice
> procedures?
> >
> > That said,
I don't know that there is a normal as it likely depends heavily on the revenue
per customer and the service's tolerance for giving out IP addresses. It also
depends heavily on the back end infrastructhre and what kind of service is
being provided. There's probably massive scale behind
> But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers,
> at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any
> success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks
> out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be
> On Mar 30, 2022, at 17:00 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>>If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
>>supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is
>>seriously problematic and a huge process failure.
>>
>>
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/introducing-ipv6-only-subnets-and-ec2-instances/
> On 1 Apr 2022, at 06:44, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> In short:
> Amazon
> Alibaba
> Google Cloud
>
> And a few other laggards that are key destinations that a
> On Apr 1, 2022, at 12:15 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> …in a run-of-the-mill web hoster?
> I’m happy to take private replies and summarize/anonymize back to the list,
> if people prefer.
I asked the same question on Twitter, and got quite a lot of answers in both
places pretty quickly. Thus
iMac:owen (112) ~ % host www.amazon.com
2022/03/31 17:16:40
www.amazon.com is an alias for tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com.
tp.47cf2c8c9-frontier.amazon.com is an alias for
Owen DeLong wrote:
It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses are used
within the building, the problem of audit trail opacity is
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yep… He’s absolutely right… We need to find a way to get the networks that
aren’t deploying IPv6 to
get off the dime and stop holding the rest of the world hostage in the IPv4
backwater.
Owen
You keep championing that approach, essentially unchanged for the past
20
> On Mar 31, 2022, at 20:51, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative
>> domains.
>
> So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
> the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses
VIDEO | New Episode of "Internet Innovators"
*Kleinrock Tells His Story + History of the Internet *
Kleinrock's story begins on the streets of Harlem, where he credits his
ability to see the world "without pretense" and how this ideology has
influenced his research.
*Watch the full episode to
53 matches
Mail list logo
