On 2/19/2011 10:11 AM, kmedc...@dessus.com wrote:
And that has nothing to do with whether a protocol is a peer protocol or not.
IP is a peer-to-peer protocol. As SMTP is implemented over IP, it is also a
peer-to-peer protocol.
At each layer of an architecture, the question of whether a mec
My understanding of peer-to-peer was that it indicated that all hosts had
equal ability to originate or terminate (as in accept, not as in end) sessions.
That is, the role of client or server is defined by the choice of the
application
and/or software on the host and not by the network.
IP is a p
On 2/19/2011 10:11 AM, kmedc...@dessus.com wrote:
And that has nothing to do with whether a protocol is a peer protocol or not.
IP is a peer-to-peer protocol. As SMTP is implemented over IP, it is also a
peer-to-peer protocol.
At each layer of an architecture, the question of whether a mec
th the paper-compliance-tiger as it provides no useful benefit
whatsoever.
---
() ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
>-Original Message-
>From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mh...@ox.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 03 February, 2011 16:41
>To: Matthew Palmer; nanog
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:57:46 pm Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > From: "Michael Dillon"
> > This sounds a lot like bellhead speak.
> As a long time fan of David Isen, I almost fell off my chair laughing at
> that, Michael: Bell *wanted* things -- specifically the network -- smart
> and complic
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Dillon"
> > folks called them "backward" and "stuck in ipv4-think." But the fact
> > of the matter is, operators want a protocol to be as simple, efficient,
> > flexible, and stupid as possible. They don't want the protocol tied to how
> > things work
> One of the biggest problem v6 seems to have had is that its designers seemed
> to think the problem with v4 was that it didn't have enough features. They
> then took features from protocols that ipv4 had killed over the years, and
> added them to v6, and said, "Look, I made your new IP better."
On 2/15/2011 11:41 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(*) "bonkers" for whatever operational definition you want - wedged hardware,
corrupted database, coercion by men with legal documents and firearms, whatever.
Route injected by foreign parties into BGP.
Also a reason not to have them even c
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
> > Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
> > creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
> > this that raise the hair on admin
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, David Israel wrote:
They don't want the protocol tied to how things work today; it needs to
be open to innovation and variety. And part of that is that an address
needs to be just an address, with no other significance other than being
unique and routable. The moment an
On 2/15/2011 5:08 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least min
On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
> creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
> this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least mine.
I don't get this. Why spend cycles discover
@muada.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:23 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: quietly
On 2 feb 2011, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
> SLAAC fails because you can't get information about DNS, NTP, or anything
other than a list of prefixes and a router that MIGHT actually
Sounds like PI space is a solution for those 5000 desktops.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: david raistrick [mailto:dr...@icantclick.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:05 AM
To: Cameron Byrne; Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: quietly
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Cameron
Ditto.
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:02 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: quietly
I have also now seen 2 different vendor DSL modems which when not using
PPPoE require a manually entered default router (ie, no RA
On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Ignoring historical mistakes, what would they be?
> gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would want to renumber of out
> 198.32.64.0/24...
I guess you missed the part where I said "Ignoring historical mistakes".
> making them immutable pretty much
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> >>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
> >>> are "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being
> >>>
On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
>>> are "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being
>>> "golden" addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets
>>> in
- Original Message -
> From: "David Conrad"
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> >> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses are
> >> "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being "golden"
> >> addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses are
>> "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being "golden"
>> addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets into root
>> server operator politics...
>
> there
On 2/3/11 12:59 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>> You missed my pointed. Root servers are hard coded, but they aren't
>> using a well known anycast address.
>
> Actually, most of the IP addresses used for root servers are anycast
> addresses and given they'
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
>> guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
>
> Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of
On 2/6/2011 6:13 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure this is the nightmare people think it will be.
In my (admittedly fairly small-scale) experience with operating v6 on real
networks, being able to figure out a prefix from a schema such as
ARIN:ARIN:SITE:VLAN::/64
makes things a lot easier.
On 2011-02-03, at 18:37, Paul Graydon wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 06:31 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>
>> I, personally, have been waiting to hear what happens when network techs
>> discover that they can't carry IP addresses around in their heads anymore.
>>
>> That sounds trivial, perhaps, but I do
In message <4d4f27e4.6080...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/6/2011 4:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > PS3 will only be a problem if it doesn't work through double NAT
> > or there is no IPv4 path available. Homes will be dual stacked for
> > the next 10 years or so even if the upstrea
On 2/6/2011 4:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
PS3 will only be a problem if it doesn't work through double NAT
or there is no IPv4 path available. Homes will be dual stacked for
the next 10 years or so even if the upstream is IPv6 only. DS-Lite
or similar will provide a IPv4 path. The DS-Lite serv
In message <23119638.5335.1297017284299.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com>, Ja
y Ashworth writes:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Owen DeLong"
>
> > I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
> >
> > Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transi
On 2/6/2011 2:53 PM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
It is worth correlating that there seems to be some agreement to "surprising market
ignorance" in the feature set and implementation of IPv6 as it pertains to the
demands of its myriad actual consumers, and that the market will eventually teach the
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While Sony is, indeed, showing surprising market ignorance and bad
> judgment at the moment, I think that the market will eventually teach
> them a lesson in these regards.
>
> Time will tell.
It is worth correlating that there seems to be some a
Once upon a time, Henry Yen said:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:43:18AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I believe that Sony will offer IPv6 software upgrades for the PS-3 because
> > they will eventually realize that failing to do so is bad for future sales.
>
> Technical impediments (lack of ipV6)
On Feb 6, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Henry Yen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:43:18AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I believe that Sony will offer IPv6 software upgrades for the PS-3 because
>> they will eventually realize that failing to do so is bad for future sales.
>
> Sony appears quite willing
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:43:18AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I believe that Sony will offer IPv6 software upgrades for the PS-3 because
> they will eventually realize that failing to do so is bad for future sales.
Sony appears quite willing to file eye-openingly broad discovery requests
in its O
On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
>>
>> Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition.
>>
>> No, it can't be 100% magic on the part o
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If you advertise a product as internet access, then, providing limited or
> partial access
> to the internet does not fulfill the terms of the contract unless you have
> the appropriate
> disclaimers.
And in nearly every ISP's terms-of-service, w
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
>
> Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition.
>
> No, it can't be 100% magic on the part of the service provider.
>
> It still has to happen. There is
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <85d304ba-6c4e-4b86-9717-2adb542b8...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
> writes
>
>>> Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't do. It's
>>> all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that blocks port 25,
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <20110205131510.be13e9b5...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
> writes
>>> And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small
>>> enterprise attract their attention and get the features added?
>>
>> You return the e
In article <20110205131510.be13e9b5...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
writes
And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small
enterprise attract their attention and get the features added?
You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose
and demand you
In article <85d304ba-6c4e-4b86-9717-2adb542b8...@delong.com>, Owen
DeLong writes
Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't
do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that
blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before you buy?
If
>
> Firewalls merely constrict it. Not that I advocate against the use of
> firewalls;
> in fact, I think I'm agreeing with you, and extending the argument a little
> further,
> that we should move from NAT to firewalls, then from stateful firewalls to
> secure hosts and network security applianc
sure
From: Lee Howard
To: Owen DeLong ; david raistrick
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 2:16:35 PM
Subject: RE: quietly
> The end-to-end model is about "If my packet is permitted by policy and
delivered to the
> The end-to-end model is about "If my packet is permitted by policy and
delivered to the
> remote host, I expect it to arrive as sent, without unexpected
modifications."
Well, it's about communications integrity being the responsibility of the
endpoint. It
is therefore expected that the network
Derek J. Balling wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6 enab
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
>> OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely enable
>> IPv6 anyway.
>
> Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
> makes the various securit
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
> I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
> guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
> rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6 enabled OS, it
> was reall
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely
enable IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
makes the various security threats -- including the current topic of
rogue RAs -- go away
John R. Levine wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North Am
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan>, John Levine writes:
>>> and saying "by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
>>> contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
>>> stunned us with its sym
On 2/5/2011 8:06 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
year in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
count.)
http://twitter.com/unquietwiki/status/449593712050176 springs to mind --
it was even *last* year.
In message , "Derek J. Balli
ng" writes:
>
> On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
> > guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
>
> Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of yours and
In message , "John R. Levine" wr
ites:
> > I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
> > guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
> >
> > Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
> > it in writing.
>
> Sure. Bet y
> Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this year
> in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
> count.)
John -
I happen to know with absolute certainty that the above statement is false.
But I'd be happy to take your money! :-)
Nathan
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
> guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of yours and their time?
This is like telling the cashier at the h
In message <20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan>, John Levine writes:
> >and saying "by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
> >contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
> >stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
> >sin n
>and saying "by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
>contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
>stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
>sin no more! Thank you Mr. DeLong from making the blind see again!"
More likely "uh
> If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the
> contract and the contract says they are providing internet access,
> then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a
> termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to
> date.
> (Yes, I have successf
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> In article , Owen
> DeLong writes
>
> >What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
> >mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never knowing
> >that there were wrenches that there are new tools available in IPv6.
> >
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> In article <20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
> writes
>
> >> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
> >> renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
> >> once every five year
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article , david
> raistrick writes
>>> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
>>> renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
>>
>> But (what I keep being told) you should nev
In article , Owen
DeLong writes
What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never knowing
that there were wrenches that there are new tools available in IPv6.
That screws or nuts and bolts can usually be superi
In article <20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
the
In article ,
david raistrick writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have
to renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether
that's once
But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber! Get PI
space and insert magic here!
Part
On 2/5/2011 1:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not sure how I feel about a more adaptive version. Sounds like it would be
better
than the current state, but, I vastly prefer "I pay, you route. If I want
filtration, I'll
tell you."
I generally agree with you. However, I also believe that every network
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
>> just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
>> them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
>> not have a problem u
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the
>> case
>> of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
>>
>
> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought
On 2/4/2011 9:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Maybe because it is just easier to do a transparent redirect to the ISPs
mail server and look for patterns there.
Analyzing flows generally isn't any more difficult than analyzing mail
log patterns. It doesn't have the queue and check mechanism of a
t
>
> Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
> just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
> them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
> not have a problem unless your traffic patterns drew concerns and
> caused
>
On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the case
of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Original Message -
>> From: "Brian Johnson"
>
>> This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
>> on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
>> who claim to be "in the know" on these top
Original Message -
> From: "Brian Johnson"
> This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
> on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
> who claim to be "in the know" on these topics that don't understand
> that NAT was designed for addr
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> Subject: Re: quietly
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
>
> > Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> > years or so now? SIP (because i
On Feb 4, 2011, at 5:26 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/4/2011 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Hell, even without CPE doing it, many residential ISPs (regardless of NAT)
>>> block inbound traffic to consumers.
>>> >
>> Really? And they have subscribers? Surprising.
>>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
On 2/4/2011 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Hell, even without CPE doing it, many residential ISPs (regardless of NAT)
block inbound traffic to consumers.
>
Really? And they have subscribers? Surprising.
Mark Andrews wrote:
I run machines all the time that don't have firewall to protect
them
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:04 AM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
>> what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
>> P2P are really the only things that actually give a
On 2/4/11 2:34 PM, R A Lichtensteiger wrote:
> david raistrick wrote:
>
>>> Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
>>> firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
>>
>> We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
>> "we" are not the average cons
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
> renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
> once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
> the new ADSL hiccups[1] now that I have
In message , Jared Mauch
writes:
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
> >> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
> >>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How wi
david raistrick wrote:
>> Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
>> firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
>
> We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
> "we" are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days
> before NAT (a
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Roland Perry wrote:
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber! Get PI
space and insert magic here!
si
Everyone doesn't suddenly get "owned" because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that "we"
are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days before NAT
(and SPI).
--
david raistrick
In article ,
Brian Johnson writes
Some people have no perspective on what the Internet is and it's real
power. I've met too many people who claim to be "in the know" on these
topics that don't understand that NAT was designed for address
preservation.
Especially as most (I guess) users of
In message , david rai
strick writes:
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
> > what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
> > P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn a
Semi-OT:
"You are now what we need you to be. A beaten, resentful people who
will have to rebuild, who will have to rely on our.. good graces. Who
can be used and.. guided as we wish to guide you. Perfect ground for
us to do our work.. Quietly, quietly."
Sorry.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
>> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
>>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only inter
>> nal host know what to do w
In message <201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
> > I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only inter
> nal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS lookup?
>
>
In message , Roland Perry writes:
> In article <20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
> writes
> >> These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
> >> enterprises in a change to IPv6.
> >
> >It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
> >
> >I expect to see IPv4
>>
>> Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
>
>In different ways, yes, it was.
>
>Owen
>
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective on what
the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people who claim to be
"in the know" on these t
On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
>> internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
>> lookup?
>
> If the CPE is d
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn about
it.
Largely because we've been living with t
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:38, wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
>
> > Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> > years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
> > only things that actually give a damn about
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
> Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
> years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
> only things that actually give a damn about it.
"It's client/server unless it's peer-to-p
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
> internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
> lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS proxy (most do) then it can map the record t
In article <5fddad27-71f3-44fe-b195-4e0f27f09...@megacity.org>, Derek J.
Balling writes
If people start supplying CPE that are running IPv6 on the outside and IPv4 NAT
in the inside, then that would just fine, in the sense that
the users (in this case including the self-administrators of these
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
>>
>> I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
>> where there is enough IPv4 addresses to meet the internal needs.
>> It's external communication which needs to switch to IPv6. Intern
In article <20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
writes
These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
enterprises in a change to IPv6.
It isn't "change to", its "add IPv6".
I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
where there is
In message <4d4b5dcb.3090...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/3/2011 7:50 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > This was blindling obvious to me years ago and should have been to
> > any CPE developer.
> >
> It doesn't appear to be blindingly simple for the cpe-router-bis draft,
> which leaves it a
On 2/3/2011 7:50 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
This was blindling obvious to me years ago and should have been to
any CPE developer.
It doesn't appear to be blindingly simple for the cpe-router-bis draft,
which leaves it as TBD, or the cpe-router draft which also is silent.
General consensus I got f
In message <4d4b51ea.2030...@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/3/2011 6:03 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > The protocol was done in December 2003. Any CPE vendor could have
> > added support anytime in the last 7 years. Did we really need to
> > specify how to daisy chain PD requests when
On 2/3/2011 7:31 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
And they didn't mangle packets. You either pass through a gateway
or not. You don't have your internal organs re-arranged as you go
through.
Next you'll tell me that Compuserve had a real IP stack.
Jack
1 - 100 of 409 matches
Mail list logo
