Re: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same performance. That should be because you are comparing cost of carrier, that is telco, grade NAT and consumer grade routers. Remember the cost of carrier grade datalink of SONET/SDH.

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

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 IETF has achieved consensus on

Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)

> On 26 Mar 2022, at 21:51, Philip Homburg wrote: > >>> If there is a magical transition technology that allows an IPv6-only host t >> o >>> talk to an IPv4-only host, then let's deploy it. >> >> DNS64/NAT64, DS-Lite, 6rd, 464XLAT, MAP-T, MAP-E, ? pick a transition >> protocol and see what

Re: IPv6 Only - was Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Sites looking at the traffic they get and saying, you know what all our customers connect to us over IPv6 with some of them also connecting over IPv4. I think we can stop supporting IPv4 now. ISP’s saying this IPv4aaS isn’t getting much traffic anymore lets out source it for the few customers

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:47:08 -0700 John Gilmore wrote: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/ The draft touches on IANA considerations, but this seems inadequate to make any more progress and gain wider acceptance. It seems to me there has been compelling

Re: V6 still not supported

I think this message is 4 days early. Owen > On Mar 28, 2022, at 11:03 , Ryland Kremeier > wrote: > > > > Hmm. > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG > On Behalf Of > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG > Sent: Monday,

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

> > 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 IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here

Sling.com and/or Dish Network Contact.

Sorry for the spam, is there anyone that has a contact for Sling.com or Dish? If so, can you contact me off-list. Thanks Anthony Leto

ATT DNS contact

Hi all, Apologies for the spam, but if anyone has a contact for AT that can help with DNS on the list could you please reach out to me off list? I’m seeing failures to send messages to @txt.att.net addresses due to a bogus DNS failure on your end: host mx3b.txt.att.net

Re: V6 still not supported

Not to necessarily disagree with you, but that is more of a Sony problem than an IPv4 problem. - Jared Jordi Palet wrote: It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until

Re: V6 still not supported

It is not a fixed one-time cost ... because if your users are gamers behind PSP, Sony is blocking IPv4 ranges behind CGN. So, you keep rotating your addresses until all then are blocked, then you need to transfer more IPv4 addresses ... So under this perspective, in many cases it makes more

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 05:52:06PM +, Livingood, Jason wrote: > > Their crappy equipment needing rebooting every few weeks, not ridiculous. > > Their purchasing gear from incompetent vendors who cannot be standards > compliant for PoE PD negotiation, tragically plausible. > > Many

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

On 3/30/22 10:52, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote: Could well be from noise ingress - lots of work goes into finding & fixing ingress issues. Hard to say unless we look in detail at the connection in question and the neighborhood node. Packet loss absolutely could be noise ingress. That's

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

Thanks Jason—they are all are business connections. I know they can be restarted through the business portal, but honestly the business portal is terrible for large clients. Not all our connections are listed under the same account due to something with Comcast and the way "regions" and various

RE: RE: CGNAT scaling cost (was V6 still not supported)

Hi Jared, I did mean big systems where performance needed is n*100Gbps or bigger. For router or CGNAT: the chassis cost is less than 1 card. Hence, all cost is in ports (for the big router up to 95% if counting QSFP too). Chassis, power supplies, switching fabrics - could be discarded for a big

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

On 3/30/22 09:53, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 3/29/22 2:19 PM, Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG wrote: When you hear hoof beats, look for horses, not zebras. As someone with a family member that is a zebra from a health perspective, I follow up with: Yes, /look/ for horses when you hear hoof

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

> I asked him to remotely reboot the modem because there was high packet loss. FWIW, as a customer (assuming residential), you can login to the website and check for area outages/impairments at https://www.xfinity.com/support/status-map. You can also use the Xfinity app to remotely reboot

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

> Their crappy equipment needing rebooting every few weeks, not ridiculous. > Their purchasing gear from incompetent vendors who cannot be standards compliant for PoE PD negotiation, tragically plausible. Many customers buy their own cable modem. You can lease an Xfinity device as well and

Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 1:21 PM John Kristoff wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:36:24 +0200 > Jared Brown wrote: > > > IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing > > $X/month cost. > > From an RIR perhaps, but when demand changes for your available pool, > what happens

Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 18:36:24 +0200 Jared Brown wrote: > IPv4 address blocks have a fixed one-time cost, not an ongoing > $X/month cost. From an RIR perhaps, but when demand changes for your available pool, what happens downstream? When you rent servers from providers, unless you bring your

Re: RE: CGNAT scaling cost (was V6 still not supported)

Hi Eduard, Do I interpret your findings correctly, if this means that CGNAT costs scale more or less linearly with traffic growth over time? And as a corollary, that the cost of scaling CGNAT in itself isn't likely a primary driver for IPv6 adoption? - Jared Vasilenko Eduard wrote: > >

Re: V6 still not supported

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 growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. > >>

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

On 2022-03-30 12:53 p.m., Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: We've run into too many people who hear hoof beats, assume horses, and proceed as if zebras are absolutely not a possibility. I'll never forget my first major escalation as a young engineer, on a phone call with multiple angry

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

On 3/29/22 3:46 PM, Joe Greco wrote: So if you want the $100 test to eliminate PoE electrical effects, get a pair of media converters and run fiber between them. Put the CPE on the far end. Optimize as appropriate if you have SFP-capable switches. I second this. I'd also be willing to get

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

On 3/29/22 2:19 PM, Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG wrote: When you hear hoof beats, look for horses, not zebras. As someone with a family member that is a zebra from a health perspective, I follow up with: Yes, /look/ for horses when you hear hoof beats, but -- and this is the important thing --

Re: V6 still not supported

- On Mar 30, 2022, at 12:36 PM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com 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

Re: V6 still not supported

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 growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services. > > Could you please

RE: CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

CGNAT cost was very close to 3x compared to routers of the same performance. Hence, 1 hop through CGNAT = 3 hops through routers. 3 router hops maybe the 50% of overall hops in the particular Carrier (or even less). DWDM is 3x more expensive per hop. Fiber is much more expensive (greatly varies

Re: V6 still not supported

- On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com 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

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

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 process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply

Re: A few questions regarding about RPKI/invalids

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:35 AM Job Snijders via NANOG wrote: > > I'd reject them. Why carve out an exception merely because the > number is 'large'? :-) > > To add to this, many routes does not equal lots of traffic or even important traffic. If it continues to be invalid, someone didn't

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 85: Meeting Registration Open

Dear NANOG Community, NANOG 85 hybrid meeting, hosted by Team Cymru will take place June 6-8, 2022 in Montreal, Quebec. 1. Registration Fees + Deadlines 2. Hotel Guest Room Block 3. Safety + Travel 1. Registration Fees + Deadlines Meeting Registration:

CGNAT scaling cost (was Re: V6 still not supported)

An oft-cited driver of IPv6 adoption is the cost of scaling CGNAT or equivalent infrastructure for IPv4. Those of you facing costs for scaling CGNAT, are your per unit costs rising or declining faster or slower than your IPv4 traffic growth? I ask because I realize I am not fit to evaluate the

Re: V6 still not supported

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. Could you please be more specific about which costs you are

Re: V6 still not supported

Doug McIntyre wrote: > > 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? > > It already happens, more along the lines of "Business Class" vs. "Residential > Class". >

Re: A few questions regarding about RPKI/invalids

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 01:29:25PM +, Drew Weaver wrote: > Ex 45.176.191.0/24 3356 3549 11172 270150 > > RPKI ROA entry for 45.176.191.0/24-24 > Origin-AS: 265621 > > Two questions: > > First, are you also seeing this on this specific route? It is visible in a few places, but the 61%

Re: A few questions regarding about RPKI/invalids

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022, Drew Weaver wrote: We’ve noticed that there are a number of routes being passed along from 3356 with invalid origin AS. Of those, almost all of them are being passed to 3356 from 3549 (legacy Global Crossing) and there is no valid path available for any of these prefixes

Re: A few questions regarding about RPKI/invalids

Seeing this prefix with exactly same path coming from Zayo. My path is 6461 3356 3549 11172 270150 I Kind regards, Andrey Drew Weaver писал(а) 2022-03-30 09:29: Hello, We've noticed that there are a number of routes being passed along from 3356 with invalid origin AS. Of those, almost all of

A few questions regarding about RPKI/invalids

Hello, We've noticed that there are a number of routes being passed along from 3356 with invalid origin AS. Of those, almost all of them are being passed to 3356 from 3549 (legacy Global Crossing) and there is no valid path available for any of these prefixes (at least according to the ROA).

ICANN Survey on DNS Suffix Usage and New gTLD Delegation

Dear colleagues, tl;dr: Please take our survey on DNS suffix usage here: https://forms.gle/ntvsn6eqzYH9YcTN6 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is researching the technical impact of delegating new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). This research is part of the

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

Tom Beecher wrote: > I'd be curious to see the data you guys have collected on what it has been > confirmed to work on if that's available somewhere. The Implementation Status of unicast 240/4 is in the Appendix of our draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/