RE: Spam from inteliquent.com subject nanog
Nothing here for what it's worth Paul -Original Message- From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:j...@west.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:01 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Spam from inteliquent.com subject nanog Anyone else just get this? Curious if they're scraping this list for addresses. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Re: Spam from inteliquent.com subject nanog
Same. Nothing here. Maybe someone at Tiscali/Tinet where fixing their mailing with their new name and made an error. On that subject... What kind of trouble Tiscali/Tinet got into to pull an Arthur Anderson and change their name to Inteliquent? Context: Arthur Anderson changed their name to Accenture (yuck) after that unfortunate incident. PS: I know they merge =D I'm just not a big fan of their new name. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 05/22/12 06:25, Paul Stewart wrote: Nothing here for what it's worth Paul -Original Message- From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:j...@west.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:01 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Spam from inteliquent.com subject nanog Anyone else just get this? Curious if they're scraping this list for addresses. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
this NANOG wiki is getting spammed
I don't think this is the official nanog wiki, but anyway probably the owners are on this mail list. Spammers is wasting everyone time by filling it with crap. http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Special:RecentChanges -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje. . . . . . postdata: Blizzard is getting strange slower speeds for some customers (300ms ping, wen other have a normal of 100ms). I blame this in evil ISP's doing evil things, or routing problems. Ignore this line.
Re: IPv6 aggregation tool
:) thanks! Was wondering how to do that. Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2012, at 9:36, Stefan Jakob stefan.ja...@de-cix.net wrote: Am 04.05.12 03:35, schrieb Rafael Rodriguez: Found this tool that works perfectly. http://zwitterion.org/software/aggregate-cidr-addresses/aggregate-cidr-addresses Hoping this'll help someone else here on the list. Thanks! Thx, this is at least three times faster than what I have here. Just a comment on the final print statement, which doesn't fit my needs for ipv6: -print prefix: , $_-prefix(), \n; +print print: , $_-print(), \n; - prefix: 2001:0db8::::::/32 + print: 2001:db8::/32 Rgds, Stefan
Re: IPv6 aggregation tool
Le mardi 22 mai 2012 à 14:02 -0400, Rafael Rodriguez a écrit : :) thanks! Was wondering how to do that. $ perldoc Net::IP ;) That doc's a fine one to read also for other reasons. Cheers, mh Sent from my iPhone On May 21, 2012, at 9:36, Stefan Jakob stefan.ja...@de-cix.net wrote: Am 04.05.12 03:35, schrieb Rafael Rodriguez: Found this tool that works perfectly. http://zwitterion.org/software/aggregate-cidr-addresses/aggregate-cidr-addresses Hoping this'll help someone else here on the list. Thanks! Thx, this is at least three times faster than what I have here. Just a comment on the final print statement, which doesn't fit my needs for ipv6: -print prefix: , $_-prefix(), \n; +print print: , $_-print(), \n; - prefix: 2001:0db8::::::/32 + print: 2001:db8::/32 Rgds, Stefan
Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers
On 2012-05-19 22:24, Adam Rothschild wrote: http://www.voxel.net offers web-orderable servers and VMs, with BGP support (IPv4 and IPv6) available as a paid add-on in all service locations. Is this publicly advertised or do you have to ask for it? I can't find anything about BGP on their web site... Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source-- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
RE: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers
http://www.voxel.net/assets/VoxCAST-Whitepaper.pdf J.J. -Original Message- From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:22 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers On 2012-05-19 22:24, Adam Rothschild wrote: http://www.voxel.net offers web-orderable servers and VMs, with BGP support (IPv4 and IPv6) available as a paid add-on in all service locations. Is this publicly advertised or do you have to ask for it? I can't find anything about BGP on their web site... Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source-- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM, J.J. Mc Kenna jmcke...@intelletrace.com wrote: http://www.voxel.net/assets/VoxCAST-Whitepaper.pdf that does mention bgp, but not in the context of 'make my server do bgp with the voxel network equipment'... in the context of: If you setup a cdn you need to speak bgp. I don't see a clicky-box on the voxel server (dedicated hosting) configuration and pricing page for 'add the bgp to my server, pls.'. -chris -Original Message- From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:22 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers On 2012-05-19 22:24, Adam Rothschild wrote: http://www.voxel.net offers web-orderable servers and VMs, with BGP support (IPv4 and IPv6) available as a paid add-on in all service locations. Is this publicly advertised or do you have to ask for it? I can't find anything about BGP on their web site... Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source -- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers
On 2012-05-22 15:02, J.J. Mc Kenna wrote: http://www.voxel.net/assets/VoxCAST-Whitepaper.pdf This is not what I would call BGP support. It's just a CDN. Thanks, Simon -Original Message- From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:22 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers On 2012-05-19 22:24, Adam Rothschild wrote: http://www.voxel.net offers web-orderable servers and VMs, with BGP support (IPv4 and IPv6) available as a paid add-on in all service locations. Is this publicly advertised or do you have to ask for it? I can't find anything about BGP on their web site... -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source-- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers
On 05/19/2012 02:19 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: Any recommendations of such? -Bill I know of a datacenter down in the Carolinas that will do such a setup for those sufficiently clued. Hit me up off list if you're interested in their details. Regards, Chris
Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? 2. If, and how, are they handling NAT64 for native IPv6 edge devices? 3. What is the percentage of breakdown for users on native IPv6? Dual stacked? GREE is a mobile social gaming company and we're trying to better understand what lies between our customer's smart phones and our servers. My next step will be to reach out to the carriers themselves, but I figured many of their Network Engineers are probably on the NANOG mailing list and this would be a great place to start. Thanks in advance for your time and assistance. Sincerely, - Paul Porter -- *Paul G. Porter *GREE International | Network Engineer CCNP, CCSP, JNCIS-FWV, JNCIA-Junos E-mail: paul.por...@gree.net Mobile: (510) 371-1147 Twitter: paul_g_porter
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porter paul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch 2. If, and how, are they handling NAT64 for native IPv6 edge devices? Yes, NAT64 / DNS64 is used in the case of reaching ipv4-only nodes. If you are concerned about middleboxs, you should deploy IPv6. 3. What is the percentage of breakdown for users on native IPv6? Dual stacked? Small today. As IPv6 becomes the default setting, that will change. CB GREE is a mobile social gaming company and we're trying to better understand what lies between our customer's smart phones and our servers. My next step will be to reach out to the carriers themselves, but I figured many of their Network Engineers are probably on the NANOG mailing list and this would be a great place to start. Thanks in advance for your time and assistance. Sincerely, - Paul Porter -- *Paul G. Porter *GREE International | Network Engineer CCNP, CCSP, JNCIS-FWV, JNCIA-Junos E-mail: paul.por...@gree.net Mobile: (510) 371-1147 Twitter: paul_g_porter
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On 05/22/2012 01:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porterpaul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Paul
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
IPV6 is present, to my knowledge, on all devices on the Verizon IPV6 LTE network. I noticed its using it to communicate to Google for many of it's services when I ran a netstat. I believe they mandated support for it from any certified device. Unfortunately, it's still firewalled. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote: On 05/22/2012 01:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porterpaul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Paul
RE: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
iOS 5.1 includes SLAAC and DHCPv6 client. Tina -Original Message- From: PC [mailto:paul4...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:59 PM To: Paul Graydon Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers IPV6 is present, to my knowledge, on all devices on the Verizon IPV6 LTE network. I noticed its using it to communicate to Google for many of it's services when I ran a netstat. I believe they mandated support for it from any certified device. Unfortunately, it's still firewalled. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote: On 05/22/2012 01:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porterpaul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Paul
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On 05/22/2012 01:40 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: On 05/22/2012 01:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porterpaul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Paul Cameron contacted me off list and pointed out the steps. Works a treat, NAT64 is handling the IPv4 traffic without any obvious problems, along with IPv6. Smooth and simple. Shame it has to be switched on through some manual steps, but I guess that's understandable for now given it's technically in Beta stage. Paul
Re: Peer1/Server Beach support for BGP on dedicated servers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:02 PM, J.J. Mc Kenna jmcke...@intelletrace.com wrote: http://www.voxel.net/assets/VoxCAST-Whitepaper.pdf that does mention bgp, but not in the context of 'make my server do bgp with the voxel network equipment'... in the context of: If you setup a cdn you need to speak bgp. I don't see a clicky-box on the voxel server (dedicated hosting) configuration and pricing page for 'add the bgp to my server, pls.'. offlist a respondent states that emails to sales@ would get this moving in the right direction... that seems promising. thanks off-list respondent! -chris
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk writes: That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Same here. IPv6 works fine over my wifi, but doesn't work at all over tmobile. If I play with the cell settings to allow ipv4/ipv6 in APN then all communication stops. TMO might need to go back to those drawing boards. I don't see ipv6 working at all over their network. -wolfgang -- g+: https://plus.google.com/114566345864337108516/about
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On May 22, 2012 6:50 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wolfgang.ruppre...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk writes: That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Same here. IPv6 works fine over my wifi, but doesn't work at all over tmobile. If I play with the cell settings to allow ipv4/ipv6 in APN then all communication stops. TMO might need to go back to those drawing boards. I don't see ipv6 working at all over their network. Please read and follow the instructions here on how to setup https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch Feel free to ping me off-list if you see any issues. From what you wrote, my guess is you are using a phone that does not have IPv6 support (only Nexus phones have support today... Other phones do not have the correct radio / RIL capabilities) CB -wolfgang -- g+: https://plus.google.com/114566345864337108516/about
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. thanks, -Randy - Original Message - IPV6 is present, to my knowledge, on all devices on the Verizon IPV6 LTE network. I noticed its using it to communicate to Google for many of it's services when I ran a netstat. I believe they mandated support for it from any certified device. Unfortunately, it's still firewalled. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote: On 05/22/2012 01:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porterpaul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Paul
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. wierd, I could swear someone in my office with a galaxy-nexus-on-vzw was able to browse some ipv6-only sites.
Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/17/dns_changer_blackouts/ -Henry
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it. It certainly does not work on the iPad 3 in Ohio. Not only that, but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address, because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot functionality. Head--Wall. thanks, -Randy - Original Message - On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. wierd, I could swear someone in my office with a galaxy-nexus-on-vzw was able to browse some ipv6-only sites.
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
Verizon still seems to be quiet about their IPv6 plans for their FiOS network too :(. Derek On 5/22/2012 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it. It certainly does not work on the iPad 3 in Ohio. Not only that, but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address, because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot functionality. Head--Wall. thanks, -Randy - Original Message - On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. wierd, I could swear someone in my office with a galaxy-nexus-on-vzw was able to browse some ipv6-only sites.
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Derek Ivey de...@derekivey.com wrote: Verizon still seems to be quiet about their IPv6 plans for their FiOS network too :(. no they aren't, their complete lack of any noise is their plan. no plan. joy. On 5/22/2012 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it. It certainly does not work on the iPad 3 in Ohio. Not only that, but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address, because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot functionality. Head--Wall. thanks, -Randy - Original Message - On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. wierd, I could swear someone in my office with a galaxy-nexus-on-vzw was able to browse some ipv6-only sites.
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it. uhm... you asked someone at their kiosks/stores about ipvanything?? you are a very, very brave man. It certainly does not work on the iPad 3 in Ohio. Not only that, but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address, because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot functionality. Head--Wall. good times!! mobile carriers live in what seems like a very different world from the one the rest of the internet lives in :( (cameron's folk aside, where there are still some oddities, at least you can get working ipv6, and mostly working v4... or working enough that I can tether my phone and vpn over that connection when necessary) -chris thanks, -Randy - Original Message - On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. wierd, I could swear someone in my office with a galaxy-nexus-on-vzw was able to browse some ipv6-only sites.
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On May 22, 2012 7:14 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wolfgang.ruppre...@gmail.com wrote: Cameron Byrne writes: From what you wrote, guess is you are using a phone that does not have IPv6 support (only Nexus phones have support today... Other phones do not have the correct radio / RIL capabilities) I'm using the Galaxy Nexus GSM bought directly from google a few weeks ago. The firmware is up to date as are the apps. The instructions mention settings and pages that are slightly wrong for this phone. I went to the Mobile network settings - Access Point names - T-Mobile US, epc.tmobile.com - APN Protocol. It was IPv4 and I changed it to IPv4/IPv6 and then rebooted. There was no save button or menu item. After reboot the ipv4/ipv6 setting was still active (so it was saved), but no connection took place. The cell tower I'm using is in Fremont, CA (CID 47052 LAC321). Might it not be v6 connected? For the sake of the archive and documenting the confirmed fix, the correct APN setting for T-Mobile is IPv6 not IPv4 /IPv6 CB -wolfgang -- g+: https://plus.google.com/114566345864337108516/about
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com writes: On May 22, 2012 7:14 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wolfgang.ruppre...@gmail.com wrote: Cameron Byrne writes: From what you wrote, guess is you are using a phone that does not have IPv6 support (only Nexus phones have support today... Other phones do not have the correct radio / RIL capabilities) I'm using the Galaxy Nexus GSM bought directly from google a few weeks ago. The firmware is up to date as are the apps. The instructions mention settings and pages that are slightly wrong for this phone. I went to the Mobile network settings - Access Point names - T-Mobile US, epc.tmobile.com - APN Protocol. It was IPv4 and I changed it to IPv4/IPv6 and then rebooted. There was no save button or menu item. After reboot the ipv4/ipv6 setting was still active (so it was saved), but no connection took place. The cell tower I'm using is in Fremont, CA (CID 47052 LAC321). Might it not be v6 connected? For the sake of the archive and documenting the confirmed fix, the correct APN setting for T-Mobile is IPv6 not IPv4 /IPv6 Yup. Thanks Cameron! Chosing IPv6 (-only), does work. I can view IPv6-only websites when on a cell connection. Before that only worked when on wifi. -wolfgang -- g+: https://plus.google.com/114566345864337108516/about
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
- Original Message - On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it. uhm... you asked someone at their kiosks/stores about ipvanything?? you are a very, very brave man. No... the Business technical support via telephone. They knew what I was talking about, but no idea about what VZW's plans are for it. It certainly does not work on the iPad 3 in Ohio. Not only that, but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address, because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot functionality. Head--Wall. good times!! mobile carriers live in what seems like a very different world from the one the rest of the internet lives in :( Tell me about it. I would settle for a stable IPv4 address (dynamic is fine, but a lease time of something closer to an hour, rather than 2 minutes) -Randy
Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: - Original Message - On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it. uhm... you asked someone at their kiosks/stores about ipvanything?? you are a very, very brave man. No... the Business technical support via telephone. They knew what I was talking about, but no idea about what VZW's plans are for it. yea... so keep in mind that vzw and set(vzb(former mci/uunet) / vzt (the phone company that owns the copper AND also deployed FIOS)) are very, very different things. I think inside vzb/vzt there's some oddness in their planning process for v6, it's completely divorced from the vzw planning. If you want answers about your vzw mifi/phone/tablet you can only ask vzw kiosk/etc people :( It certainly does not work on the iPad 3 in Ohio. Not only that, but I can't even pay them to give me a stable IPv4 address, because if you get a static IP, it disables the hotspot functionality. Head--Wall. good times!! mobile carriers live in what seems like a very different world from the one the rest of the internet lives in :( Tell me about it. I would settle for a stable IPv4 address (dynamic is fine, but a lease time of something closer to an hour, rather than 2 minutes) maybe they already did the CGN thing to their network, lots and lots of single IP sharing by port number! look, it's the future! -chris -Randy
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
father of bind? that's news. dnschanger gonna be a mess? that's not news. randy
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:14:16PM -0700, Henry Linneweh wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/17/dns_changer_blackouts/ -Henry Paul certainly knows how to manipulate the press. /bill
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
On May 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote: father of bind? that's news. http://boingboing.net/2012/03/29/paul-vixies-firsthand-accoun.html He was there, and Put The Fix In, to down the network. I gather he's the one pulling it out on the appointed day as well. dnschanger gonna be a mess? that's not news. Agreed. Aloha, Michael. -- Please have your Internet License and Usenet Registration handy...
RE: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers
I have the 4GLTE LG VL600 usb modem from Verizon on a consumer data-only $50/month plan and it gives my Windows 7 laptop a v6 address on both 3G and 4G connections. I noticed it recently when I was logged into the ARIN website since their site puts a banner across the top when you're accessing via ipv6; then I tried other sites to confirm it was working. David -Original Message- From: Randy Carpenter [mailto:rcar...@network1.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:07 PM To: PC Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Current IPv6 state of US Mobile Phone Carriers Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them $500 to get a static public IP address. thanks, -Randy - Original Message - IPV6 is present, to my knowledge, on all devices on the Verizon IPV6 LTE network. I noticed its using it to communicate to Google for many of it's services when I ran a netstat. I believe they mandated support for it from any certified device. Unfortunately, it's still firewalled. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote: On 05/22/2012 01:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, Paul Porterpaul.por...@gree.co.jp wrote: Hi NANOG, I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically, we are trying to figure out: 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for ATT, Verizon. T-Mobile, and Sprint are on IPv6 now? Hi, T-Mobile USA has native ipv6 to all subscribers in all of it's coverage area. But, less than 1% of subscribers use IPv6 because they do not have an IPv6 capable phone. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus work well. This device challenge will improve in time. Samsung is doing a good job of bringing IPv6 to Android devices. More info here That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my wireless network at home. Doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the settings to enable or disable that. Paul
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:52:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote: father of bind? that's news. http://boingboing.net/2012/03/29/paul-vixies-firsthand-accoun.html He was there, and Put The Fix In, to down the network. Certainly news to Phil Almquist and the entire BIND development team at UCB. Paul was at DECWRL and cut his teeth on pre-existing code. While he (and ISC) have since revised, gutted, tossed all the orginal code, rebuilt it twice - and others have done similar for their DNS software, based on the BIND code base, implementation assumptions, and with little or no ISC code, and they call it BIND as well, it would be a HUGE leap of faith to call Paul Vixie the father of BIND - The Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon. As for being there and Put The Fix In... Makes for great PR but in actual fact, its a bandaid that is not going to stem the tide. An actual fix would really need to change the nature of the creaky 1980's implementation artifacts that this community loves so well. /bill
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
As for being there and Put The Fix In... Makes for great PR but in actual fact, its a bandaid that is not going to stem the tide. maybe we could wad up the sensationalist and self-aggrandizing newspaper articles and use them to plug the dike? randy
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
On May 22, 2012, at 9:10 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:52:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote: father of bind? that's news. http://boingboing.net/2012/03/29/paul-vixies-firsthand-accoun.html He was there, and Put The Fix In, to down the network. Certainly news to Phil Almquist and the entire BIND development team at UCB. Paul was at DECWRL and cut his teeth on pre-existing code. While he (and ISC) have since revised, gutted, tossed all the orginal code, rebuilt it twice - and others have done similar for their DNS software, based on the BIND code base, implementation assumptions, and with little or no ISC code, and they call it BIND as well, it would be a HUGE leap of faith to call Paul Vixie the father of BIND - The Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon. Methinks we're talking at cross purposes. As for being there and Put The Fix In... Makes for great PR but in actual fact, its a bandaid that is not going to stem the tide. An actual fix would really need to change the nature of the creaky 1980's implementation artifacts that this community loves so well. I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. Paul was there to shut down the DNS changer system and replace it with something that restored functionality to the infected machines. And I gather Paul will be one of the people who will turn the lights out on it. Your other comments are non-sequitur to the main issue. When those servers are turned off, Customer Support folks at many ISPs will prolly want to take their accrued vacation. Aloha, Michael. -- Please have your Internet License and Usenet Registration handy...
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 9:10 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:52:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote: father of bind? that's news. http://boingboing.net/2012/03/29/paul-vixies-firsthand-accoun.html He was there, and Put The Fix In, to down the network. Certainly news to Phil Almquist and the entire BIND development team at UCB. Paul was at DECWRL and cut his teeth on pre-existing code. While he (and ISC) have since revised, gutted, tossed all the orginal code, rebuilt it twice - and others have done similar for their DNS software, based on the BIND code base, implementation assumptions, and with little or no ISC code, and they call it BIND as well, it would be a HUGE leap of faith to call Paul Vixie the father of BIND - The Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon. Methinks we're talking at cross purposes. maybe... :) my comment was refering to the father of bind statement. As for being there and Put The Fix In... Makes for great PR but in actual fact, its a bandaid that is not going to stem the tide. An actual fix would really need to change the nature of the creaky 1980's implementation artifacts that this community loves so well. I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all. Paul was there to shut down the DNS changer system and replace it with something that restored functionality to the infected machines. And I gather Paul will be one of the people who will turn the lights out on it. He didn't shut down DNS Changer, he put up an equivalent system to hijack DNS traffic and direct it to the right place... SO folks didn't see any problem and the DNS Changer infection grew and got worse. When he is legally required to take his bandaide out of service, then the problem will resolve by folks who will have to clean their systems. As for turning the lights out - that will only happen when the value of DNS hijacking drops. As it is now, ISC has placed DNS hijacking code into their mainstream code base... because DNS hijacking is so valuable to folks. In a modestly favorable light, ISC looks like an arms dealer (DNS redirection) to the bad guys -AND- (via DNSSEC) the good guys. Either way, they make money. And yes, I think I agree with you. Paul will be there to turn things off when they no longer make money for his company. Your other comments are non-sequitur to the main issue. Perhaps I am not a member of the Paul Vixie cult of personality. When those servers are turned off, Customer Support folks at many ISPs will prolly want to take their accrued vacation. Amen. And there will be thousands more of them when the court order expires than existed when the Feds called him in. /bill Aloha, Michael. -- Please have your Internet License and Usenet Registration handy...
Re: Vixie warns: DNS Changer ‘blackouts’ inevitable
When those servers are turned off, Customer Support folks at many ISPs will prolly want to take their accrued vacation. Amen. And there will be thousands more of them when the court order expires than existed when the Feds called him in. they could extend the court order, or prolong the do-gooder hack longer under some other pretext, increasing the underlying problem further. more infected machines and more job creation for front line support when the whitewash finally stops. randy
