Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Joe Hamelin]

Matthew said: And imagine answering the phones...

Bender's Big Score.

Is this for Jewish Hospital (AS 22694)?

And many years ago I had jh.org, but domains were $70 back then and my
wife thought I had too many...

--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:07:41AM +0200, Per Carlson wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, "Day Domes"  wrote:
> > I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> > network.  I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> > any issues with this?
>
> Technically, no.
> 
> But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing
> that right on the first attempt.

And imagine answering the phones...

- Matt

Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Per Carlson]

Technically, no.

But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing
that right on the first attempt.
On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, "Day Domes"  wrote:
> I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
> network.  I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> any issues with this?
>

Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Day Domes]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Joe Hamelin  wrote:
> 16 bit integers.  Ok, a lame joke.
>
> 22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available.  What are you trying to name?
>
>
> --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Day Domes  wrote:
>> unsigned?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin  wrote:
>>> On Saturday night, Day Domes  postulated:
 I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
 any issues with this?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's truly unsigned?
>>> (15 bit)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>>>
>>
>

A new network that we are going to use to connect all are global data
centers and also use to peer with other networks to push data to the
Internet

Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Joe Hamelin]

16 bit integers.  Ok, a lame joke.

22694.NET and 58A6.NET are available.  What are you trying to name?


--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474



On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Day Domes  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin  wrote:
>> On Saturday night, Day Domes  postulated:
>>> I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
>>> any issues with this?
>>
>>
>> It's truly unsigned?
>> (15 bit)
>>
>> --
>> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>>
>
> unsigned?
>

Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Day Domes]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Joe Hamelin  wrote:
> On Saturday night, Day Domes  postulated:
>> I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
>> any issues with this?
>
>
> It's truly unsigned?
> (15 bit)
>
> --
> Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
>

unsigned?

Re: network name 101100010100110.net

[Joe Hamelin]

On Saturday night, Day Domes  postulated:
> I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
> any issues with this?


It's truly unsigned?
(15 bit)

--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

network name 101100010100110.net

[Day Domes]

I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network.  I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Mark Smith]

Hi Kevin,

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:13:22 -0700
"Kevin Oberman"  wrote:

> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
> > From: Mark Smith 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
> > "Kevin Oberman"  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > > > From: Mark Smith 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> > > > Randy Bush  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> > > 
> > > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more.
> > 
> > No, drafts are documents that can be submitted by anybody, and can say
> > anything, where as RFCs have been through an IETF evaluation process.
> > 
> > > Only a
> > > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> > > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> > > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> > > 
> > > The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
> > > way to address P2P circuits.
> > 
> > I suggest you search the v6ops mailing list, as I've read it multiple
> > times, including all revisions, and have pointed out multiple issues
> > with it. 
> > 
> > > Also, you might note the contributors to the
> > > draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
> > > goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
> > > that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem. 
> > 
> > As do I. You can see my analysis of the issue, and how I think it
> > should be fixed properly, not mitigated for one type of link at the
> > following URLs.
> > 
> > http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2010/msg00543.html
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12400.html
> 
> I don't entirely agree with your arguments, but the approach looks, at
> first glance, to be quite interesting and could quite possibly fix the
> problem. I'll need to digest it a bit better. 
> 
> Have you or someone else authored a draft on this proposal?

I've started writing one on the nonce solution, as it can be made to
interoperate with existing deployed ND NS/NA mechanisms.

Regards,
Mark.

> In the
> meantime, I still support /127s for P2P links.
> -- 
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
> Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
> E-mail: ober...@es.netPhone: +1 510 486-8634
> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:24:41 +1030
> From: Mark Smith 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
> "Kevin Oberman"  wrote:
> 
> > > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > > From: Mark Smith 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> > > Randy Bush  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> > 
> > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more.
> 
> No, drafts are documents that can be submitted by anybody, and can say
> anything, where as RFCs have been through an IETF evaluation process.
> 
> > Only a
> > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> > 
> > The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
> > way to address P2P circuits.
> 
> I suggest you search the v6ops mailing list, as I've read it multiple
> times, including all revisions, and have pointed out multiple issues
> with it. 
> 
> > Also, you might note the contributors to the
> > draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
> > goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
> > that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem. 
> 
> As do I. You can see my analysis of the issue, and how I think it
> should be fixed properly, not mitigated for one type of link at the
> following URLs.
> 
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2010/msg00543.html
> 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12400.html

I don't entirely agree with your arguments, but the approach looks, at
first glance, to be quite interesting and could quite possibly fix the
problem. I'll need to digest it a bit better. 

Have you or someone else authored a draft on this proposal? In the
meantime, I still support /127s for P2P links.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: ober...@es.net  Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100
> From: Randy Bush 
> 
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> 
> must be some blowhard i have plonked
> 
> > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
> > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> 
> juniper and cisco implement today

Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line
units I have tested recently did not.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: ober...@es.net  Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Randy Bush]

>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?

must be some blowhard i have plonked

> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> anyone with a large network running IPv6.)

juniper and cisco implement today

randy

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)

[Bill Bogstad]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Mark Smith
 wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
> Bill Bogstad  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
>> >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
>> >> From: Mark Smith 
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
>> >> Randy Bush  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>> >
>> > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
>> > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
>> > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
>> > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
>>
>> And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related.  That
>> seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have
>> implemented them by now.
>>
>
> The IETF standards process is different to other standards
> organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is
> much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input
> into the decision.

I read my first RFC sometime in 1984.   I still find it odd that after
something like a decade
of development/operational history NONE of the IPv6 related RFCs have
made it all the way to full standard status.   This might be a minor
point but I think that not making at least some of the base IPv6 RFCs
full standards probably slowed down deployment.   OTOH, now that
people are convinced that they won't be able to get more IPv4
addresses in the near future; a possible perception that IPv6 was
"experimental" may no longer matter...

Bill Bogstad

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Franck Martin]

You give a /64 to the end users (home/soho), and /48 to multi homed 
organization (or bigger orgs that use more than one network internally) and get 
a /32 if you are an ISP.

See also the discussion about what to use in p2p links.

- Original Message -
From: "Brandon Kim" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM
Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption


Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of 
information.

Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks for that 
correction

Thanks again especially on a Saturday weekend!



> From: rdobb...@arbor.net
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:09:43 +
> Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
> 
> 
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
> > Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most 
> > cuurent if not helpful information resides.
> 
> 
> Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as well, in 
> combination with Schudel & Smith's infrastructure security book (the latter 
> isn't IPv6-specific, but is the best book out there on infrastructure 
> security):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Roland Dobbins  // 
> 
>  Sell your computer and buy a guitar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
  

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:52:31 -0400
Bill Bogstad  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> >> From: Mark Smith 
> >> 
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> >> Randy Bush  wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> >> >
> >>
> >> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> >
> > Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
> > handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> > one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> > anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> 
> And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related.  That
> seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have
> implemented them by now.
> 

The IETF standards process is different to other standards
organisations - publication of an RFC doesn't make it a standard. It is
much more pragmatic, as operational history is also used as an input
into the decision.

> Bill Bogstad

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:26:54 -0700
"Kevin Oberman"  wrote:

> > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> > From: Mark Smith 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> > Randy Bush  wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> > > 
> > 
> > Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
> 
> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more.

No, drafts are documents that can be submitted by anybody, and can say
anything, where as RFCs have been through an IETF evaluation process.

> Only a
> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> anyone with a large network running IPv6.)
> 
> The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
> way to address P2P circuits.

I suggest you search the v6ops mailing list, as I've read it multiple
times, including all revisions, and have pointed out multiple issues
with it. 

> Also, you might note the contributors to the
> draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
> goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
> that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem. 

As do I. You can see my analysis of the issue, and how I think it
should be fixed properly, not mitigated for one type of link at the
following URLs.

http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2010/msg00543.html


http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12400.html

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)

[Bill Bogstad]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman  wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
>> From: Mark Smith 
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
>> Randy Bush  wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>> >
>>
>> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?
>
> Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
> handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
> one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
> anyone with a large network running IPv6.)

And none of the listed IETF "full standards" are IPv6 related.  That
seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have
implemented them by now.

Bill Bogstad

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030
> From: Mark Smith 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
> Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> > 
> 
> Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?

Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a
handful have ever been designated as "Standards". I hope this becomes
one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by
anyone with a large network running IPv6.)

The point is to READ the draft arguments and see why /127s are the right
way to address P2P circuits. Also, you might note the contributors to the
draft. They are people well know on this list who have real, honest to
goodness operational experience in running networks and really understand
that a /64 on a P2P connection is a serious security problem. 
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: ober...@es.net  Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

RE: T-Mobile USA - Peering Policy

[Ryan Finnesey]

I wanted to thank everyone for their helpful on-list and off-list reply's.
Cheers
Ryan


-Original Message-
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:44 AM
To: Ryan Finnesey
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: T-Mobile USA - Peering Policy

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ryan Finnesey 
 wrote:
> Can someone on the list from T-Mobile USA please contact me.  I have 
> tried sending a message to ad...@tmodns.net but the message bounces 
> back and the mailbox for arintechcont...@t-mobile.com is full.   I am 
> trying to find out information regarding there peering policy.
>

You can contact me off-list for T-Mobile USA questions.

Cameron

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Brandon Kim]

Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of 
information.

Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks for that 
correction

Thanks again especially on a Saturday weekend!



> From: rdobb...@arbor.net
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:09:43 +
> Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
> 
> 
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
> > Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most 
> > cuurent if not helpful information resides.
> 
> 
> Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as well, in 
> combination with Schudel & Smith's infrastructure security book (the latter 
> isn't IPv6-specific, but is the best book out there on infrastructure 
> security):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Roland Dobbins  // 
> 
>  Sell your computer and buy a guitar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
  

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most 
> cuurent if not helpful information resides.


Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as well, in 
combination with Schudel & Smith's infrastructure security book (the latter 
isn't IPv6-specific, but is the best book out there on infrastructure security):





---
Roland Dobbins  // 

   Sell your computer and buy a guitar.

Re: 12 years ago today...

[Rodney Joffe]

I'm not sure about a documentary, but a group of us are working on identifying 
all the different independent archives that have records from "the early years" 
with the idea of creating a Smithsonian/national archive collection at some 
point. We'll probably issue an rfc early next year.  



On Oct 16, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Warren Bailey  wrote:

> I bet it was terribly hard for Vint to write that. Was really nice to read 
> though, and to know that he had a good enough friend to express his deep 
> sorrow so publicly. 
> 
> While we are on the subject of "the godfathers of the Internet", when is a 
> documentary coming out that tells the story? There was a really long 
> documentary done on the BBS, surely someone (myself included) would find it 
> interesting. 
> 
> //warren
> 
> Sent from a mobile phone with a small keyboard, please excuse my mistakes.
> 
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 12:45 AM, "Ali S"  wrote:
> 
>> He should have been better known for his work. The intertubes will miss you
>> 
>> Sent via mobile.
>> 
>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe  wrote:
 On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
 
 http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
>>> 
>>> Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !!
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Joel Jaeggli]

Joel's widget number 2

On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36, Brandon Kim  wrote:

> 
> Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has 
> books/articles they recommend on fully
> understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN 
> shortly to request a v6 block.
> 
> I'm assuming I would be asking for a /64 being an ISP. But I'd like to read 
> up as much as possible before
> requesting the block

An ISP requesting an assignment would typically request a /32

For policy, I'd read the ARIN nrpm's section on v6 assignment.

https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six

I'd also get a book, for background, something like:

http://www.amazon.com/Running-IPv6-Iljitsch-van-Beijnum/dp/1590595270/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1287244118&sr=8-3#reader_1590595270

Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most 
cuurent if not helpful information resides.

> I think our approach will be to use dual-stack on the routers and let the 
> clients themselves handle how they want to use IPv6...
> 
> Ultimately, it is up to them, their network, and their applications on how to 
> use v6...
> 
> Thanks guys!
> 
> 

Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:

> 
> Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has 
> books/articles they recommend on fully
> understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN 
> shortly to request a v6 block.
> 
> I'm assuming I would be asking for a /64 being an ISP. But I'd like to read 
> up as much as possible before
> requesting the block
> 
No, as an ISP, you should get at least a /32. A /64 is a single subnet in IPv6.

> I think our approach will be to use dual-stack on the routers and let the 
> clients themselves handle how they want to use IPv6...
> 
Seems reasonable. FWIW, you should plan for assigning clients a /48 per 
end-site.

> Ultimately, it is up to them, their network, and their applications on how to 
> use v6...
> 
Yep.

Owen

Re: 12 years ago today...

[gordon b slater]

On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 01:43 -0700, Ali S wrote:
> He should have been better known for his work. The intertubes will miss you

One day I hope he'll be featured in school history lessons.

An amazing legacy - something approaching 1/3rd of the planet's
population uses it every time they use the 'nets.

Gord
--
History repeating itself? tcpdump the STP to figure out why.

Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Brandon Kim]

Since we are on the topic of IPv6. I'd like to know if anyone has 
books/articles they recommend on fully
understanding IPv6 adoption in the work place. I will need to contact ARIN 
shortly to request a v6 block.

I'm assuming I would be asking for a /64 being an ISP. But I'd like to read up 
as much as possible before
requesting the block

I think our approach will be to use dual-stack on the routers and let the 
clients themselves handle how they want to use IPv6...

Ultimately, it is up to them, their network, and their applications on how to 
use v6...

Thanks guys!
  

Re: 12 years ago today...

[Dave CROCKER]

On 10/15/2010 10:51 PM, Rodney Joffe wrote:

On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html



Quite a few of us felt compelled to remark on his life and effect on us.

They've been nicely collected at postel.org:

   

Speak softly and carry a big registry.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100
Randy Bush  wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> 

Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they?

isoc moves to hollywood

[Randy Bush]

isoc has made some movies trying to explain to normal humans what the
fate of internet access might become.

http://www.isoc.org/tools/blogs/scenarios/

imiho, message quality varies.  but in general i like what they are
trying to do.

randy

Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6

[Randy Bush]

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt

Re: Enterprise DNS providers

[Ken Gilmour]

Thanks everyone for the fast and offline responses! Black Lotus contacted me
directly (almost instantly) and helped me set up an account straight away so
I will give them a try.

On 16 October 2010 12:03, Ken Gilmour  wrote:

> Hello any weekend workers :)
>
> We are looking at urgently deploying an outsourced DNS provider for a
> critical domain which is currently unavailable but are having some
> difficulty. I've tried contacting UltraDNS who only allow customers from US
> / Canada to sign up (we are in Malta) and their Sales dept are closed, and
> Easy DNS who don't have .com.mt as an option in the dropdown for
> transferring domain names (and also support is closed).
>
> Black Lotus looks like the next best contender, has anyone had experience
> with these or any other recommendations for how we can transfer a .com.mtto a 
> reliable hosting provider during the weekend?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ken
>

Enterprise DNS providers

[Ken Gilmour]

Hello any weekend workers :)

We are looking at urgently deploying an outsourced DNS provider for a
critical domain which is currently unavailable but are having some
difficulty. I've tried contacting UltraDNS who only allow customers from US
/ Canada to sign up (we are in Malta) and their Sales dept are closed, and
Easy DNS who don't have .com.mt as an option in the dropdown for
transferring domain names (and also support is closed).

Black Lotus looks like the next best contender, has anyone had experience
with these or any other recommendations for how we can transfer a .com.mt to
a reliable hosting provider during the weekend?

Thanks!

Ken

Re: Internet in DPRK / North Korea

[Warren Bailey]

All of the DPRK elite use satellite connections which terminate in Iran. Wonder 
if they'll be pissed off when their search for "imperialist America" is blocked 
and they can't seem to figure out tor?

Sent from a mobile phone with a small keyboard, please excuse my mistakes.

On Oct 10, 2010, at 8:01 PM, "Jeffrey Lyon"  wrote:

> I love the hard hitting, unbiased reports.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Christopher Morrow
>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:57 PM, jim deleskie  wrote:
>>> and his 3g's and his wifi's? :)
>> 
>> that's just crazy talk.
>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Christopher Morrow
>>>  wrote:
 
 On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:38 PM, John R. Levine  wrote:
> 175.45.179.68/
 
 
 once senses that the potential successor wants his twitters and
 facebooks...
 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
> 

Re: 12 years ago today...

[Warren Bailey]

I bet it was terribly hard for Vint to write that. Was really nice to read 
though, and to know that he had a good enough friend to express his deep sorrow 
so publicly. 

While we are on the subject of "the godfathers of the Internet", when is a 
documentary coming out that tells the story? There was a really long 
documentary done on the BBS, surely someone (myself included) would find it 
interesting. 

//warren

Sent from a mobile phone with a small keyboard, please excuse my mistakes.

On Oct 16, 2010, at 12:45 AM, "Ali S"  wrote:

> He should have been better known for his work. The intertubes will miss you
> 
> Sent via mobile.
> 
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe  wrote:
>>> On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
>>> 
>>> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
>> 
>> Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !!
>> 
> 

Re: 12 years ago today...

[Ali S]

He should have been better known for his work. The intertubes will miss you

Sent via mobile.

On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe  wrote:
>> On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
>> 
>> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
> 
> Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !!
>