Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project that would connect universities, research institutions and some military installations. In that context, 32 bits would still be humongous. Our estimation of humongous didn't change, the usage of the network changed dramatically. The experiment escaped from the laboratory and took on a life of its own. Once that happened, the realization that 32 bits wasn't enough was very nearly immediate. The IPv6 address space offers 61 bits of network numbers each of which holds up to 64 bits worth of hosts. Obviously you never want to fill one of those subnets (nor could you with any available hardware), but it means that you don't have to waste time thinking about rightsizing network assignments. Hi Owen, We think 64 bits is humongous on an IPv4 Internet where autoconfiguration is rarely bordering never larger than a single LAN. But, we want the fridge to get a /64 from the home automation controller for its internal sensor network. Which means the home automation controller will be holding something around a /58 or so in order to accommodate the various smart devices in the house. Which means the the cable router will be holding a /54 or more to accommodate the server lan, the home automation delegation, the PC lan, the VM delegation, the wifi lan, etc. And at a customer boundary we'll only break at a nibble boundary, so that brings us to /52. Which is inconvenient since we often have larger users so we'll just break at /48 for everybody. Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. So that leaves us 16 bits. But we don't want the native network to overlay the 6RD network because we want a real simple /16 route into the nearest 6rd encapsulator. And we don't want to advertise multiple BGP prefixes either. So we claim another bit and allocate our native infrastructure from the /16 that doesn't overlap the 6rd setup. 3 bits are held in reserve at the top; only 2000::/3 is available for public Internet use. So that drops us from 15 to 12 bits. Now we want to organize the BGP backbone and we've 12 bits left to work with. That's 4 bits less than the number of autonomous systems participating in BGP on Internet today. Of course this is in many ways a straw man. And I'm picking on you Owen because in the past you've advocated both /48's for end users and 6rd justifying 32 bits of allocation above that from the registry. But really, with the right (or maybe I mean wrong) hierarchic network auto-configuration technologies it's not hard to imagine how the IPv6 address space could be exhausted in 20 years. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: [arin-announce] Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Now Available to ARIN Customers
The first ROAs created in the ARIN system are starting to appear: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26242517/ARIN_ROAs_20120918.png Check the progress in our public RPKI Validator testbed (hosted by EuroTransit and connected to a Juniper running 12.2 with BGP Origin Validation support): http://rpki01.fra2.de.euro-transit.net:8080 Public testbed info at the bottom of this page: http://www.ripe.net/certification/tools-and-resources -Alex On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:51, Mark Kosters ma...@arin.net wrote: Hi This announcement may be of interest to many of you. Regards, Mark From: INFO i...@arin.netmailto:i...@arin.net Date: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:59 AM To: arin-annou...@arin.netmailto:arin-annou...@arin.net arin-annou...@arin.netmailto:arin-annou...@arin.net Subject: [arin-announce] Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Now Available to ARIN Customers ARIN is proud to announce that ARIN resource holders with either a signed RSA or LRSA may now participate in RPKI through ARIN Online. Additionally, those wishing to validate RPKI information may do so after requesting a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL). ARIN’s TAL is required to validate information from ARIN’s RPKI repository. RPKI is a free, opt-in service that allows users to certify their Internet number resources to help secure Internet routing. This initiative has been developed within the IETF's SIDR Working Group, with involvement from Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and numerous Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ARIN encourages members of the Internet community to certify their resources through RPKI. Internet routing today is vulnerable to hijacking and the provisioning/use of certificates is one of steps required to make routing more secure. Widespread RPKI adoption will help simplify IP address holder verification and routing decision-making on the Internet. ARIN plans to continually review and improve RPKI based upon user feedback. Users are encouraged to report any issues via the arin-tech-discuss mailing list. For more information about this crucial step in securing Internet routing as well as future enhancement plans, visit ARIN’s RPKI Home Page at https://www.arin.net/resources/rpki/index.html. Regards, Mark Kosters Chief Technical Officer (CTO) American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
China Contact
Hi I am search a supplier for Ethernet Link from Bejing to Singapore and changzhou to singapore Anyone have a contact for this ? (SingTel ? China Telecom ?) Thanks Olivier
Re: Big Temporary Networks
William Herrin wrote: OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS for DAD, for example. Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large, which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost. Hi Masataka, Where do things go wrong? OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS for DAD, for example. Wifi station to station communications comprises a relatively minor portion of wifi's use so we don't burn a lot of worry on them in the general analysis. OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS for DAD, for example. In IPv6, the station sends an ICMPv6 router solicitation instead of an ARP for the default gateway. This is a multicast message but since it's from the station to the AP it's subject to layer 2 error recovery by the 802.11 protocol. The default gateway sends back a router advertisement (unicast since its responding to a solicitation) Unicast since its responding to a solicitation? RFC4861 states: A router MAY choose to unicast the response directly to the soliciting host's address (if the solicitation's source address is not the unspecified address), but the usual case is to multicast the response to the all-nodes group. and a comment in rtadvd on the solicited advertisement: /* * unicast advertisements * XXX commented out. reason: though spec does not forbit it, unicast * advert does not really help In the reverse direction, Poor SLAAC with a lot of configured states is unnecessarily a lot more complex than simply bidirectional ARP, because it must involve all the distributed states of all the hosts on the link. What did I miss? Where does IPv6 take the bad turn that IPv4 avoided? If you still want to defend IPv6, you must say multicast RA and DAD are unnecessary features of IPv6, which means the current IPv6 is broken. Masataka Ohta
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us writes: I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from some of the posters is kind of shocking. There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no v4 addresses to be had. I keep performing this vendor monologue. It goes something like: What do I mean when I say it must support IPv6? I mean two things. First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better document them and have a remediation plan (or work-around if it is a deficiency baked into the standard; there are a few of which I'm aware). Second, the device must function perfectly in an IPv6-only environment, with not a hint of IPv4 addressing around. Dual-stack capability is nice, but should be an easy thing to provide if you can handle the first two requirements. Furious scribbling in the 'ol Moleskine invariably ensues. I am not sure what it is about this set of requirements (which seems so plain to see that I felt as if I was belaboring the obvious the first time I brought it up) that seems like a revelation to people in the vendor space, but apparently it does. Are *you* doing *your* part? Taken your shoe off and banged it on the conference room table Khrushchev-style lately? -r
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 17, 2012, at 23:35 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project that would connect universities, research institutions and some military installations. In that context, 32 bits would still be humongous. Our estimation of humongous didn't change, the usage of the network changed dramatically. The experiment escaped from the laboratory and took on a life of its own. Once that happened, the realization that 32 bits wasn't enough was very nearly immediate. The IPv6 address space offers 61 bits of network numbers each of which holds up to 64 bits worth of hosts. Obviously you never want to fill one of those subnets (nor could you with any available hardware), but it means that you don't have to waste time thinking about rightsizing network assignments. Hi Owen, We think 64 bits is humongous on an IPv4 Internet where autoconfiguration is rarely bordering never larger than a single LAN. But, we want the fridge to get a /64 from the home automation controller for its internal sensor network. Which means the home automation controller will be holding something around a /58 or so in order to accommodate the various smart devices in the house. Which means the the cable router will be holding a /54 or more to accommodate the server lan, the home automation delegation, the PC lan, the VM delegation, the wifi lan, etc. And at a customer boundary we'll only break at a nibble boundary, so that brings us to /52. Which is inconvenient since we often have larger users so we'll just break at /48 for everybody. Correct. Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. So that leaves us 16 bits. But we don't want the native network to overlay the 6RD network because we want a real simple /16 route into the nearest 6rd encapsulator. And we don't want to advertise multiple BGP prefixes either. So we claim another bit and allocate our native infrastructure from the /16 that doesn't overlap the 6rd setup. No, you really don't. This absurdity (and the ridiculous design of 6RD) are so problematic in this area that I cannot begin to describe what a terrible idea it is. 3 bits are held in reserve at the top; only 2000::/3 is available for public Internet use. So that drops us from 15 to 12 bits. Now we want to organize the BGP backbone and we've 12 bits left to work with. That's 4 bits less than the number of autonomous systems participating in BGP on Internet today. Again, if you take the 6RD mess out of the equation and don't saddle IPv6 with this IPv4 baggage, this is a non-issue. Of course this is in many ways a straw man. And I'm picking on you Owen because in the past you've advocated both /48's for end users and 6rd justifying 32 bits of allocation above that from the registry. But really, with the right (or maybe I mean wrong) hierarchic network auto-configuration technologies it's not hard to imagine how the IPv6 address space could be exhausted in 20 years. I still advocate /48s and I have never advocated 6RD as a permanent solution, nor have I advocated giving ISPs /16s in support of 6RD. I have supported policy to allow for temporary allocations in support of 6RD giving customers more limited (/56) prefixes due to the constraints of 6RD, however, I have consistently referred to this as a degraded form of IPv6. Owen
The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses Written by Ravi Mandalia Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire block of '/8' IPv4 addresses that is unused and an e-petition has been filed in this regards asking the DWP to sell it off thus easing off the RIPE IPv4 address space scarcity a little. John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. According to Cumming, these 16.9 million IP addresses are unused at the moment and he derived this conclusion by doing a check in the ASN database. “A check of the ASN database will show that there are no networks for that block of addresses,” he wrote. An e-petition has been filed in this regards. “It has recently come to light that the Department for Work and Pensions has its own allocated block of 16,777,216 addresses (commonly referred to as a /8), covering 51.0.0.0 to 51.255.255.255”, reads the petition. The UK government, if it sells off this /8 block, could end up getting £1 billion mark. “£1 billion of low-effort extra cash would be a very nice thing to throw at our deficit,” read the petition. Cumming ends his post with the remark, “So, Mr. Cameron, I'll accept a 10% finder's fee if you dispose of this asset :-)”.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 2012-09-18 16:07 , Eugen Leitl wrote: [..] John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. According to Cumming, these 16.9 million IP addresses are unused at the moment and he derived this conclusion by doing a check in the ASN database. “A check of the ASN database will show that there are no networks for that block of addresses,” he wrote. Some people have to learn that not every address is only used on the Internet. According to the above there will be large swaths of IPv4 left at various large organizations who have /8's as they are not announced or as the article states it as there is no ASN. Please keep this nonsense off of NANOG... Greets, Jeroen
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote: http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses The only slight snag in his argument is that the addresses are not unused. Not announced != Not used. Paul.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses unused? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true. Other than that, I'm totally failing to see what's newsworthy about who or what happens to hold a legacy /8. Could someone explain? Nick
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:32:47PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses unused? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true. Other than that, I'm totally failing to see what's newsworthy about who or what happens to hold a legacy /8. Could someone explain? Sorry about the noise. Won't happen again.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 18 Sep 2012, at 15:32, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses unused? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true. Other than that, I'm totally failing to see what's newsworthy about who or what happens to hold a legacy /8. Could someone explain? Pssst! Want a nice unused /4? Yours cheap! Tim
[NANOG-announce] NANOG mail list maintenance completed
NANOG Community: The mail list upgrade went well. NANOG mail lists are now operating on NANOG owned machines and under the management of the Communications Committee. Regards, Randy Epstein NANOG CC Chair On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: What do I mean when I say it must support IPv6? I mean two things. First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better document them and have a remediation plan (or work-around if it is a deficiency baked into the standard; there are a few of which I'm aware). Second, the device must function perfectly in an IPv6-only environment, with not a hint of IPv4 addressing around. Dual-stack capability is nice, but should be an easy thing to provide if you can handle the first two requirements. Well spoken RS, I'm cutting and pasting this one to my account team(s). Far too many discussions about this with them recently. (really, you're just *now* getting v6 to work on bundled interfaces?) -Steve
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paul Thornton p...@prt.org wrote: On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote: http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses The only slight snag in his argument is that the addresses are not unused. Not announced != Not used. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Secure_Intranet for details on HM Government's Intranet, if you are so inclined. It is currently being transformed into the Public Services Network: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/public-services-network. Alex
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: What do I mean when I say it must support IPv6? I mean two things. First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better document them and have a remediation plan (or work-around if it is a deficiency baked into the standard; there are a few of which I'm aware). Second, the device must function perfectly in an IPv6-only environment, with not a hint of IPv4 addressing around. Dual-stack capability is nice, but should be an easy thing to provide if you can handle the first two requirements. Well spoken RS, I'm cutting and pasting this one to my account team(s). Far too many discussions about this with them recently. (really, you're just *now* getting v6 to work on bundled interfaces?) We've been doing this for years on both Juniper IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else. We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't actually *use* IPv6 internally or in their lab. We have been operating our network with IPv6 for many years now. I believe in most cases our connection to the management plane go IPv6 only as well. It's been fun to see the few SSH over IPv6 defects and other elements arise as time has passed, but those days are over. It's just tiring now and no longer amusing. (hey you kids, get off my lawn?). - Jared
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: We've been doing this for years on both Juniper IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else. I may be wrong, but IOS-XR on A9K only supported v6 on bundle-ether interfaces as of 4.1.2-ish. That, of course, leads to the conversation of keeping function parity between same software revs but different hardware platforms. I understand the issues there, but doesn't make deploying a feature any easier -Steve
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
It was supported before there. We were using it prior to that release. You needed a smu though. I can perhaps find details if they are that important for you. Jared Mauch On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: We've been doing this for years on both Juniper IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else. I may be wrong, but IOS-XR on A9K only supported v6 on bundle-ether interfaces as of 4.1.2-ish. That, of course, leads to the conversation of keeping function parity between same software revs but different hardware platforms. I understand the issues there, but doesn't make deploying a feature any easier -Steve
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. Please, don't anyone tell him about 25/8.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said: Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits. Film at 11. pgpvFDJ2NdnzN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 09/18/2012 08:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: We've been doing this for years on both Juniper IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else. We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't actually *use* IPv6 internally or in their lab. We have been operating our network with IPv6 for many years now. I believe in most cases our connection to the management plane go IPv6 only as well. It's been fun to see the few SSH over IPv6 defects and other elements arise as time has passed, but those days are over. It's just tiring now and no longer amusing. (hey you kids, get off my lawn?). Of course they're challenged. There's a finite amount of dev they can do at any one time, and they go for what is going to make revenue. If you tell them that the way to your wallet is to implement some new feature in v4 and you're not emphatic that it be v6 also, they are going to do the utterly predictable thing. If you really want to make progress instead of bellyache, list off the features you need to run your network. Better yet, deploy v6 instead of saying that you'll only do it when it's perfect. That just tells your account critter that v6 isn't important to you. I'll bet you'll find features that you want that are v6 specific that you'd open your wallet for *way* before features that don't interest you that you're requiring in the name of parity. Mike
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area of the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat manner... Davis Beeman On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;) I meant real-world application. Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary. Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
H On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis davis.bee...@integratelecom.com wrote: Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area of the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat manner... Davis Beeman On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;) I meant real-world application. Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary. Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32. Owen I wonder if the medical applications of addressing each cell isn't too far off. One could individually group each organ and system in a separate /48 and potentially get a /32... Just imagine the fun of that OID tree. -- Dan Wood
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis wrote: Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area of the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat manner... Davis Beeman On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;) I meant real-world application. Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary. Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32. Owen What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space. Jason
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
I'm having problems finding any announcements for this net 10/8, too. Can someone talk to these IANA folks about reclaiming it, too? They have a bunch of other space in 172.x they should be able to use... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:36 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. Please, don't anyone tell him about 25/8.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space. Jason Practical considerations (mostly latency issues) tend to minimize real-time point-to-point connections in these scenarios. I would expect that messaging/relay gateways would play a significant role in Really-Wide Area Networking. This would move inter-networking largely to an application layer, not the network layer. Thus, worrying about Layer 3 addressing limits is probably moot and just a fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
Op 18 sep 2012, om 18:39 heeft George Herbert het volgende geschreven: I'm having problems finding any announcements for this net 10/8, too. Can someone talk to these IANA folks about reclaiming it, too? They have a bunch of other space in 172.x they should be able to use... Don't worry, they'll give in and assign us some more. Seth ;-) George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:36 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. Please, don't anyone tell him about 25/8.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
Well 172.0.0.0 to 172.15.255.255 is now owned by ATT and they have live systems on some of them already. On 18 September 2012 17:39, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I'm having problems finding any announcements for this net 10/8, too. Can someone talk to these IANA folks about reclaiming it, too? They have a bunch of other space in 172.x they should be able to use... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:36 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. Please, don't anyone tell him about 25/8. -- ??? BaconZombie LOAD *,8,1
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space. Jason Practical considerations (mostly latency issues) tend to minimize real-time point-to-point connections in these scenarios. I would expect that messaging/relay gateways would play a significant role in Really-Wide Area Networking. This would move inter-networking largely to an application layer, not the network layer. Thus, worrying about Layer 3 addressing limits is probably moot and just a fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a waste. Jason
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space. Jason Practical considerations (mostly latency issues) tend to minimize real-time point-to-point connections in these scenarios. I would expect that messaging/relay gateways would play a significant role in Really-Wide Area Networking. This would move inter-networking largely to an application layer, not the network layer. Thus, worrying about Layer 3 addressing limits is probably moot and just a fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a waste. Jason Recent work (http://www.quantum.at/quest) has not yet established success over interplanetary distances. Other recent results from aircraft (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136312-first-air-to-ground-quantum-network-created-transmits-quantum-crypto-keys) show throughput results in relatively small bits per second. I'll reserve retraction for another year or so.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On 9/18/2012 12:07 PM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space. Jason Practical considerations (mostly latency issues) tend to minimize real-time point-to-point connections in these scenarios. I would expect that messaging/relay gateways would play a significant role in Really-Wide Area Networking. This would move inter-networking largely to an application layer, not the network layer. Thus, worrying about Layer 3 addressing limits is probably moot and just a fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a waste. Jason Recent work (http://www.quantum.at/quest) has not yet established success over interplanetary distances. Other recent results from aircraft (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136312-first-air-to-ground-quantum-network-created-transmits-quantum-crypto-keys) show throughput results in relatively small bits per second. I'll reserve retraction for another year or so. And last time I checked, IPv6 wasn't supposed to be designed to last for just another year or so. If we're expecting any kind of longevity out of IPv6, we need to expect that technology will solve these problems and plan for it. I'd rather not be sitting here 10 years from now wondering why I'm dual-stacking IPv7 on top of IPv6 because we didn't plan far enough ahead. Jason
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: ...waste of NANOG list bandwidth. I sure get a chuckle when I read this on a list for people that swing around 10Gb/s pipes all day. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote: ...waste of NANOG list bandwidth. I sure get a chuckle when I read this on a list for people that swing around 10Gb/s pipes all day. That's why I included a word you omitted from the quote -- …fun waste of NANOG list bandwidth. Works for me. Works for you. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:57:34AM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote: Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a waste. You need a relativistic channel to be able to tell quantum signal from randomness.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Paul Thornton p...@prt.org wrote: On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote: http://paritynews.com/network/item/325-department-of-work-and-pensions-uk-in-possession-of-169-million-unused-ipv4-addresses Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4 Addresses The only slight snag in his argument is that the addresses are not unused. Not announced != Not used. And for the definitive answer on this block, the official response is: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internet_protocol_ipv4_address_a and http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internet_protocol_ipv4_address_a_2 1. We can confirm that the address block is assigned to the DWP. 2. In principle, none of the address space is exposed to the public Internet. There may be a very small number of addresses that have been exposed for specific purposes, but certainly no significant block of addresses is visible from the public Internet. 3. The address space is already shared across government. We have used or allocated approximately 80% of the address space, and have earmarked the remaining space for use within the proposed Public Services Network (PSN). The PSN is building an Internet for government, and the DWP address space is a key building block for delivery of this. 4. DWP have no plans to release any of the address space for use on the public Internet. The cost and complexity of re-addressing the existing government estate is too high to make this a viable proposition. DWP are aware that the worldwide IPv4 address space is almost exhausted, but knows that in the short to medium term there are mechanisms available to ISPs that will allow continued expansion of the Internet, and believes that in the long term a transition to IPv6 will resolve address exhaustion. Note that even if DWP were able to release their address space, this would only delay IPv4 address exhaustion by a number of months. And for 25.0.0.0 to 25.255.255.255 the response from the Ministry of Defense is: I can confirm that the IPv4 address block about which you enquire is assigned to and owned by the MOD; however, I should point out that within this block, none of the addresses or address ranges are in use on the public internet for departmental IT, communications or other functions. To date, we estimate that around 60% of the IPv4 address block has been allocated for internal use. As I am sure you will appreciate, the volume and complexity of the Information Systems used by the Armed Forces supporting military operations and for training continues to develop and grow.We are aware that the allocation of IPv4 addresses are becoming exhausted, and the issue has been recognised within the Department as a potential future IS risk. In summary, therefore, we are unable to consider releasing parts of the address block that has been allocated to the UKMOD for reassignment to non-UK Government organisations.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I'm talking to the people who will probably be, in 2015, running the first Worldcon I can practically drive to, in Orlando, at -- I think -- the Disney World Resort. I've told them how critical the issue is for this market; they, predictably, replied We look forward to your patch. :-} So I just want to point out that this is an utterly irrelevant topic. Worldcon is full to the brim with really smart people who can build good networks, but in every place large enough to host a Worldcon the owners of the building make money selling Internet access and don't want competition. The very best we've been able to do was create an Internet Lounge with good connectivity, and even that isn't acceptable at most locations. So this really is an irrelevant topic, unless you want to create an LTE network with good connectivity near the location and sell bandwidth via that. (Phones and tablets outnumber laptop computers by a facter of 20:1 at scifi conventions) Off-topic: FWIW Hellsinki is a hell of a lot more likely. Remember that the membership votes on where to go, and Orlando really doesn't top anyone's list. Especially since Orlando keeps blowing off the very legitimate concerns that other people have raised about the location, including that Disney takes a dim view of anyone except their own paid actors wearing costumes, and more importantly the lack of inexpensive food options. If for some reason Hellsinki's bid falls apart, Spokane has better facilities and good LTE network support. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
The only slight snag in his argument is that the addresses are not unused. Not announced != Not used. And for the definitive answer on this block, the official response is: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internet_protocol_ipv4_address_a and http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/internet_protocol_ipv4_address_a_2 This is astounding. Are we really to believe that the UK Defense folks are using 60% of a /8 - about 10,066,000 addresses? Even if every sub-allocation within that 60% were only 50% utilized, that would be over 5,000,000 addresses. Internally Allocated != used And someone should further alert him that they do not own these addresses.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition to the actual union operator of the camera such. The camera ops had to be union? Hmmm. Ah, Chicago. Yes. That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contracts generally forbid activity being done by any non-union people, even if they are the guests. Yes, and I'm told by my best friend who did attend (I didn't make it this year) that the hotel wired/wifi was essentially unusable, every time he tried. Hence my interest in the issue. Always is. Those networks are not built for that many devices attaching. They never are. But they don't want the competition either. If you NEED connectivity at the convention, you must bring your own LTE MIFI and take care of yourself. This is simply not solvable in the convention hotel contracts level. I've got many SMOF friends and I've been trying for years, and it only worked for a small gap of years before hotels starting seeing Internet as a profit vector. Unfortunately, the size requirements of things the size of Worldcon limit the choices enough that this simply can't be a bargaining point. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: That's an interesting question indeed. The optimal solution here, of course, would be for Worldcons -- which are planned 3-4 years in advance -- to get the right technical people in the loop with the property to see when in the next 2 years (after a bid is confirmed) they plan to upgrade the networking they have now... and make sure it will tolerate a real worst case. The business case for the property, of course, is that they're more salable to large technical conferences -- which makes them more money. Question is, is it enough. Those people are already in the loop. Hi. Nice to see you again, Jay :) Unfortunately, as I've said in the previous two messages, it simply isn't something that can be changed. If you are running a small convention that can fit into a dozen hotels in the city, you can make them compete on multiple levels including network. Since there are less than 4 cities in the world who could host a worldcon in more than one facility, there's zero competition. * And frankly, the hotel contracts people have bigger problems to solve--namely, getting to use metric tons of convention floor space without paying much, if any money. Worldcon memberships are $150 each unless you wait until the last minute. This is a problem that large technical conferences with thousand dollar memberships can solve. They have money to throw at the hotel. Not fan-run conventions whose entire budget is less than the spare capital that Usenix keeps in their account. (I've seen both and can state this as a positive fact.) * The one place that competition can occur is in the bidding process. Part of what we all ask bid committees is about the network access at the location. And we vote based on what we can find out. However, the number of us who vote that way are fairly small, as most attendees have other priorities like inexpensive food options, cheaper hotel options, etc. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote: William Herrin wrote: In IPv6, the station sends an ICMPv6 router solicitation instead of an ARP for the default gateway. This is a multicast message but since it's from the station to the AP it's subject to layer 2 error recovery by the 802.11 protocol. The default gateway sends back a router advertisement (unicast since its responding to a solicitation) Unicast since its responding to a solicitation? RFC4861 states: A router MAY choose to unicast the response directly to the soliciting host's address (if the solicitation's source address is not the unspecified address), but the usual case is to multicast the response to the all-nodes group. Ah, okay. So the IPv6 router usually responds to router discovery with multicast where arp would have responded with unicast. This multicast message is not subject to 802.11's layer 2 error recovery so as previously discussed it has a high probability of being lost during some relatively ordinary wifi usage scenarios. But correct me if I'm wrong: the router advertisement daemon could be altered to reply with unicast without changing the standard, right? What do the radvd and rtadvd developers say about this when confronted with the 802.11 multicast problem? Are there any Internet drafts active in the IETF to replace that MAY with a SHOULD, noting that replying with multicast can defeat layer 2 error recovery needed for the successful use of some layer 1 media? What did I miss? Where does IPv6 take the bad turn that IPv4 avoided? If you still want to defend IPv6, you must say multicast RA and DAD are unnecessary features of IPv6, which means the current IPv6 is broken. I have no interest in defending IPv6. We're network operators here. You just told us (and offered convincing reasoning) that when selecting a router vendor for use with an IPv6 wifi network, one of our evaluation check boxes should should be, Responds to ICMPv6 router solicitation with a unicast message? Yes or Fail. And when we provide the list of deficiencies to our vendor and wave the wad of cash around, one of them should be, Responds to ICMPv6 router solicitations with a multicast packet - unreliable in a wifi environment. That's strikes me as something valuable to know. Far more valuable than, Dood, IPv6 has problems on wifi networks. So, let's keep going. IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router advertisement. Where else does it fall down compared to the equivalent behavior in an IPv4 wifi network? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote: IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router advertisement. You mean it has one extra potential failure mode in situations where radio retransmission doesn't deal with the packet loss - which will cause RA to retry. Fall down is a slight overstatement. Nick
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition to the actual union operator of the camera such. The camera ops had to be union? Hmmm. Ah, Chicago. Yes. That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contracts generally forbid activity being done by any non-union people, even if they are the guests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law ''A right-to-work law is a statute that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership [...] as a condition of employment. Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states,'' Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote: IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router advertisement. You mean it has one extra potential failure mode in situations where radio retransmission doesn't deal with the packet loss - which will cause RA to retry. Fall down is a slight overstatement. Potayto, potahto. Like I said, I have no interest in defending IPv6. But I'm very interested in how to implement an IPv6 network that's as or more reliable than the equivalent IPv4 network. That makes me interested in the faults which get in the way. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
And someone should further alert him that they do not own these addresses. MIT is probably using less of their /8 than MOD is, and as far as I know, MIT has neither commando forces nor nuclear weapons. You might want to pick, so to speak, your battles more carefully. R's, John
RE: Big Temporary Networks
The trick is that there is no right to work if you are a guest at the hotel. You have no right to work on their property without their consent. In reality, the hotels do not want union headaches so that is the way it goes. Right to work only is in effect if an employer hires me and I do not want to join the union. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:48 PM To: Jo Rhett Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition to the actual union operator of the camera such. The camera ops had to be union? Hmmm. Ah, Chicago. Yes. That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contracts generally forbid activity being done by any non-union people, even if they are the guests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law ''A right-to-work law is a statute that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership [...] as a condition of employment. Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states,'' Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: The trick is that there is no right to work if you are a guest at the hotel. You have no right to work on their property without their consent. In reality, the hotels do not want union headaches so that is the way it goes. IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in union labor instead of the normal workers because they couldn't find a suitable place that was already union. Conversely, when I went to IETF in Minneapolis a few years ago the networking folks simply took over the hotel network for the week. IETF attendee or not, you got wired Internet in your room courtesy of the conference. As I understand it, they convinced the hotel with the simple expedient of paying what they would ordinarily earn from a week's Internet charges. My point is that blaming union contracts or union anything for being unable to find a place to hold a convention where you can implement the network you want to implement is nonsense. NANOG, ARIN and IETF conferences have all somehow managed to implement their own effective networks. Even in union towns. If Worldcon's site selection committee can't find a suitable host, that's their deficiency. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
[NANOG-announce] Update on NANOG board and committee nomination process
I would like to remind everyone about some important dates that are coming up for the NANOG governance process: * September 17, 2012: The nomination process for NANOG Program Committee Candidates begins. * October 1, 2012 the nomination process for the NANOG Board of Directors closes. The NANOG Program Committee is a group of sixteen individuals from the NANOG community who together are responsible for the solicitation and selection of material for NANOG meeting programs. Per the NANOG bylaws, eligible candidates each will serve a two-year term. To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Program Committee, an individual must have attended one NANOG conference within the prior calendar year (12 months) and be a member in good standing. Candidates should have a broad technical knowledge of Internet operations and be familiar with NANOG meetings. Having constructive opinions and ideas about how NANOG meetings might be improved is of high value. A willingness to recruit presentations for each meeting is required. Please send nominations to nominati...@nanog.org. If you are nominating another person, please provide that person's name and email address. If you are nominating yourself, please provide a Statement of Intent and a Biography, each with a suggested limit of 150 words. For samples, please see the 2011 candidate lists (http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2011elections/). The NANOG Board of Directors is a group of six elected members and NANOG's Executive Director. The Board of Directors is responsible for and works closely with the Committee Chairs to promote, support, and improve NANOG. The Board is responsible for the selection of the Program Committee, the Communications Committee, and the Development Committee. The Board is responsible to the members ensuring that the NANOG organization remains, open, relevant, useful, and financially sound. Please read the Board Member Responsibilities (http://www.nanog.org/governance/BOD_Responsibilities.pdf) and NANOG bylaws (https://newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws-20110104.pdf) for a complete understanding of the expectations placed on Board Members. To ensure continuity on the Board, three seats out of six become open each year due to the expiration of 2-year terms. The Board members whose terms are expiring in October are: * Patrick Gilmore * Daniel Golding * Michael K. Smith Patrick has served two 2-year terms and cannot be considered for re-election until October 2013 (one year leave). Daniel is completing the term vacated in June 2012 and he can stand for re-election. Michael is completing the term vacated in August 2011 and he can stand for re-election. How do you Nominate? You can self-nominate. If you care about NANOG’s governance and want to take a turn at volunteering your time and expertise to help make it better: 1. Make sure you are a NANOG member in good standing 2. Submit your Declaration of Candidacy to electi...@nanog.org. You can nominate others. 1. Send their contact information to electi...@nanog.org 2. If they accept the nomination, they will be asked to become a NANOG member in good standing 3. They will have to submit their Declaration of Candidacy to electi...@nanog.org. As always, if you have a questions, please email nominati...@nanog.org. Thank you for your support, and your participation in the community. Thanks, Steve Gibbard for the NANOG Board ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In message 86lig7cvpw@seastrom.com, Robert E. Seastrom writes: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us writes: I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from some of the posters is kind of shocking. There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no v4 addresses to be had. Dual stack w/ CGN for IPv4. That can be supplied a number of ways and it has more limitations for IPv4 that conventional CPE based NAT. Turning on dual stack, even at this late stage, lights up IPv6, moves most of the traffic to IPv6 so that CGN's don't need to be so beefy, and doesn't mean that you have to have perfect IPv6 everywhere when you turn on IPv6. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Big Temporary Networks
NOTE: None of the following content can be typed into your router. It holds information only slightly relevant to networking. On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:47 PM, William Herrin wrote: That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contracts generally forbid activity being done by any non-union people, even if they are the guests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law ''A right-to-work law is a statute that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership [...] as a condition of employment. Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states,'' Well, Bill, this starts the legal dance equivalent of patches accepted, that being you are welcome to sue against this with your own money. Not being aware of which states have this law, it's entirely possible that the intersection between states that have this law and states which have enough scifi fans willing to get together to host a worldcon is negligible. I can only recall ~9 states which have hosted a worldcon in the last 30 years. Checking the easily found references pages seems to confirm this although I didn't bother checking extensively. I'm closely associated and personal friends with people who have done the hotel negotiations for four of the recent worldcons, and on a first name basis with most of the others, and this union requirement has been a major problem with most if not all of them. Just getting a waiver to allow people to serve drinks in their own hotel rooms has been hard enough to break many bids. It is currently impossible in San Francisco due to hotel contracts, and part of why Worldcon will never return to San Francisco unless very unlikely changes happen. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: And someone should further alert him that they do not own these addresses. MIT is probably using less of their /8 than MOD is, and as far as I know, MIT has neither commando forces nor nuclear weapons. You might want to pick, so to speak, your battles more carefully. more over, who cares? a /8 is less than 2 months rundown globally... and, once upon a time I constructed on this list a usecase for apple's /8 ... it's really not THAT hard to use a /8, it's well within the capabilities of a gov't to do so... especially given they PROBABLY have: o unclassified networks o secret networks o top secret networks o other networks I'm sure there's plenty of ways they could use the space in question.
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said: Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits. Film at 11. Silly reason? Hardly! 6RD lets you deploy IPv6 immediately to all customers. It's a stateless tunnel. Direct the packets into an encapsulator and any customer who wants them need only catch them on their IPv4 address. Without you having to change out anything else in your network. Hitch is: if you have a whole lot of discontiguous IPv4 prefixes, sorting which maps to where in a compact IPv6 prefix is challenging. Much easier to just map the entire IPv4 space and be done with it. Poor plan. But much easier. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. So that leaves us 16 bits. But we don't want the native network to overlay the 6RD network because we want a real simple /16 route into the nearest 6rd encapsulator. And we don't want to advertise multiple BGP prefixes either. So we claim another bit and allocate our native infrastructure from the /16 that doesn't overlap the 6rd setup. No, you really don't. This absurdity (and the ridiculous design of 6RD) are so problematic in this area that I cannot begin to describe what a terrible idea it is. In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html I complained about mapping the full 32-bits of IPv4 address into an IPv6 prefix. You responded, You say that like it's somehow a bad thing, and I'm simply not seeing a problem. Have you come around to my way of thinking that using 6RD with a full 32-bit IPv4 mapping is not such a hot idea? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Big Temporary Networks
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:47:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition to the actual union operator of the camera such. The camera ops had to be union? Hmmm. Ah, Chicago. Yes. That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contracts generally forbid activity being done by any non-union people, even if they are the guests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law ''A right-to-work law is a statute that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership [...] as a condition of employment. Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states,'' 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where employment is closed to those who are not union members. It does -not- prevent a 'union ship' -- where employees are required to join the union within a reasonable period =after= being hired. Right-to-work also does not prevent an organization from requiring, by contractual agreement, that third parties performing work ON THE 0ORGANIZATION'S PREMISES, employ union labor for _that_ work. It cannot specify _what_ union (or local) however. bTW, I'm a card-carrying member, and official, of the (independant) Amalgamated Tinkerers and Gadgeteers, anyone interested in setting up their own local is invited to contact me. *GRIN*
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in union labor instead of the normal workers because they couldn't find a suitable place that was already union. I can provide people who can refute that, but I don't have (or care about) the details enough to bother quoting them. I can say that Worldcon was in Denver the proceeding week, and we could only get one hotel about a half mile from the convention center to allow us to serve drinks in our own rooms without a union person there to serve them. So I have personal experience to doubt your story. Conversely, when I went to IETF in Minneapolis a few years ago the networking folks simply took over the hotel network for the week. IETF attendee or not, you got wired Internet in your room courtesy of the conference. As I understand it, they convinced the hotel with the simple expedient of paying what they would ordinarily earn from a week's Internet charges. IETF is considerably smaller event that Worldcon, and as such can play ball with smaller hotels. Worldcons haven't fit into hotels in more than 20 years*, and must negotiate with the convention centers -- and are not able to leverage room nights in the balance. * They tried with the large Hyatt in Chicago this year and got the worst of both worlds. The rooms were overfull far beyond standing room only, and they still couldn't get a hotel contract with good internet, accessibility or issue handling. My point is that blaming union contracts or union anything for being unable to find a place to hold a convention where you can implement the network you want to implement is nonsense. NANOG, ARIN and IETF conferences have all somehow managed to implement their own effective networks. Even in union towns. If Worldcon's site selection committee can't find a suitable host, that's their deficiency. Money speaks here. The budgets for NANOG conferences are posted, as are some of the worldcon committee budgets. RTFM. And again, even though Worldcons have significantly less money, the largest Nanog ever was still smaller than the smallest worldcon in the last 20 years. Smaller == more choices of hotels == negotiating ability. Please stop trying to be a smartass about something you could research, but haven't bothered to do so. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: Not being aware of which states have this law, it's entirely possible that the intersection between states that have this law and states which have enough scifi fans willing to get together to host a worldcon is negligible. There were enough fans among the 600,000 folks in the Baltimore area but not enough an hour away among the 5,600,000 in the National Capital Region to justify hosting a Worldcon a couple miles inside the Virginia border where no unions would get in your way? Really? I'm closely associated and personal friends with people who have done the hotel negotiations for four of the recent worldcons, and on a first name basis with most of the others, and this union requirement has been a major problem with most if not all of them. Tell 'em to look in a right to work state. Like Florida. http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm Just getting a waiver to allow people to serve drinks in their own hotel rooms has been hard enough to break many bids. It is currently impossible in San Francisco due to hotel contracts, and part of why Worldcon will never return to San Francisco unless very unlikely changes happen. California. NOT a right to work state. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where employment is closed to those who are not union members. It does -not- prevent a 'union ship' -- where employees are required to join the union within a reasonable period =after= being hired. The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops nationwide. It further authorized individual states to outlaw union shops and/or agency shops. 23 states, including my fine home state of Virginia, have done so. Right-to-work also does not prevent an organization from requiring, by contractual agreement, that third parties performing work ON THE 0ORGANIZATION'S PREMISES, employ union labor for _that_ work. It cannot specify _what_ union (or local) however. In Illinois, which has not enacted a state right-to-work law, that's correct. In Virginia, which has, there was just recently a big hullabaloo where the airports authority tried (and spectacularly failed) to place a union preference rule in their contracting process where bids from union shops would have a 10% preference versus bids from non union shops. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:28 -0400, William Herrin said: In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html I complained about mapping the full 32-bits of IPv4 address into an IPv6 prefix. You responded, You say that like it's somehow a bad thing, and I'm simply not seeing a problem. Have you come around to my way of thinking that using 6RD with a full 32-bit IPv4 mapping is not such a hot idea? They're not in contradiction - you want a /28 so you can do 6RD, ARIN should let you do that. You want a /28 so you can do a non-6RD network plan, you should be allowed to do that too. But you don't get to deploy 6RD, and then complain that you don't have enough bits left when you try to do a non-6RD design. Or you could be a bit smarter and realize that you probably only actually *need* to use 16 or 20 bits of address for 6RD mapping and leave yourself 16 or 12 for other uses. AS1312 has 2 /16s, so we only need to map 16 bits of address and one more to indicate which /16 it was and the rest can be implicit. Which of course still loses if you have more than a /8 or so, or if you have 1,495 little prefixes that are scattered all over the /0 pgpmHhEZMFc8y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in union labor instead of the normal workers because they couldn't find a suitable place that was already union. I can provide people who can refute that, but I don't have (or care about) the details enough to bother quoting them. Well you would know, you were working for the Democratic National Committee back when they selected Denver and started working the logistics. No, wait, that was actually me. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
Are we still talking about this? I setup a lan at home once at that used 6/8 :) On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: And someone should further alert him that they do not own these addresses. MIT is probably using less of their /8 than MOD is, and as far as I know, MIT has neither commando forces nor nuclear weapons. You might want to pick, so to speak, your battles more carefully. more over, who cares? a /8 is less than 2 months rundown globally... and, once upon a time I constructed on this list a usecase for apple's /8 ... it's really not THAT hard to use a /8, it's well within the capabilities of a gov't to do so... especially given they PROBABLY have: o unclassified networks o secret networks o top secret networks o other networks I'm sure there's plenty of ways they could use the space in question.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, james jones wrote: Are we still talking about this? I setup a lan at home once at that used 6/8 :) They have nuclear weapons, too. Just saying. R's, John On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: And someone should further alert him that they do not own these addresses. MIT is probably using less of their /8 than MOD is, and as far as I know, MIT has neither commando forces nor nuclear weapons. You might want to pick, so to speak, your battles more carefully. more over, who cares? a /8 is less than 2 months rundown globally... and, once upon a time I constructed on this list a usecase for apple's /8 ... it's really not THAT hard to use a /8, it's well within the capabilities of a gov't to do so... especially given they PROBABLY have: o unclassified networks o secret networks o top secret networks o other networks I'm sure there's plenty of ways they could use the space in question.
Re: Big Temporary Networks (Dreamforce)
Anyone from nanog currently at the wheel of the conference network at Dreamforce in San Francisco (nearly 7 attendees)? It appears that all of the suggestions posted to this nanog thread so far were thoroughly ignored. Conference WiFi is effectively unusable, despite the very visible, expensive-looking enterprisey APs on temporary stands sprinkled throughout the conference. As far as I can tell, they're doing NAT, using a /16 per AP (which could amount to 5,000 or more devices in one broadcast domain depending on the location!), and are using what appear to be omnidirectional antennas at full blast power instead of zoning with tight directionals. Wifi is nearly unusable; even Sprint's crappy 3G coverage is faster and more reliable inside the conference halls.. -- RPM
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:29 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, james jones wrote: Are we still talking about this? I setup a lan at home once at that used 6/8 :) They have nuclear weapons, too. Just saying. Which, the Army? I don't believe that's true anymore. I think all the Army nuclear weapons have been disassembled or retired. (Quick check... B61, W76, W78, W80, B83, W84, W87, W88... The W84 was in the GLCM, and B61-10 used to be W85s in the Pershing II missiles, but those delivery vehicles are all chopped up). Or is 6/8 used by more of .mil than just the Army? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: Big Temporary Networks
There were enough fans among the 600,000 folks in the Baltimore area but not enough an hour away among the 5,600,000 in the National Capital Region to justify hosting a Worldcon a couple miles inside the Virginia border where no unions would get in your way? Really? Having grown up and started my career in Virginia, and much of my family still lives there, I can assure that that there isn't a single facility in Virginia capable of hosting a Worldcon. I think DC has another common problem, where it's either not big enough, or too big for something with only 7k attendees. AND, Virginia has the exact same problem with hotel contracts. I was part of the convention running teams there in the late 80s and early 90s too. Same problems, same discussions. Same negotiations. At this point I think at this point your right to work wishful thinking has been thoroughly debunked by others. Let's drop this topic. To bring it back on topic, even if we didn't have unions to deal with, there's no law that can force a hotel or convention center to provide access to the facilities necessary for providing wifi or LTE access to the guests. You can only do that when you have negotiating power, and then you get back to there's usually only one possible choice and they know it -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in union labor instead of the normal workers because they couldn't find a suitable place that was already union. I can provide people who can refute that, but I don't have (or care about) the details enough to bother quoting them. Well you would know, you were working for the Democratic National Committee back when they selected Denver and started working the logistics. No, wait, that was actually me. Ah, then you shouldn't have said IIRC now should you? That expressly indicates you may or may not recall something you read/heard/etc. But since you do know the details of that, then pray tell which hotels they brought in union workers at? Because I'd love to see how that played out. Or were you talking about some other type of facility that we weren't discussing? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where employment is closed to those who are not union members. It does -not- prevent a 'union ship' -- where employees are required to join the union within a reasonable period =after= being hired. The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops nationwide. It further authorized individual states to outlaw union shops and/or agency shops. 23 states, including my fine home state of Virginia, have done so. False to fact on the last point. Many of the right-to-work states do -not- proscribe union shops. Thoe that do, almost invariably allow for an automatic/involuntary payroll deduction from non-union members covered by a collective bargaining agreement, payable to the union involved, which was a pro rata share of the direct costs of negotiting the collective agreement. Right-to-work also does not prevent an organization from requiring, by contractual agreement, that third parties performing work ON THE 0ORGANIZATION'S PREMISES, employ union labor for _that_ work. It cannot specify _what_ union (or local) however. In Illinois, which has not enacted a state right-to-work law, that's correct. Illinois, not having right-to-work, is irrelevant.grin In IOWA, where I grew up, and which has one of the strongest right-to-work laws in the country, union shops _are_ legal. As are 'on-site' union labor requirements. The family business (PR consulting) was heavily involved with the state Manufacturers Association (and the national org), and several other associations of large employers. I had access to *LOTS* of detailed info on the state of right-to-work, and collective- bargaining practices nation-wide. My remarks apply to the vast majority of right-to-work states. In Virginia, which has, there was just recently a big hullabaloo where the airports authority tried (and spectacularly failed) to place a union preference rule in their contracting process where bids from union shops would have a 10% preference versus bids from non union shops. Government entities run into all sorts of difficulties with _any_ such 'preference' biases in the bidding/contracting process -- there are statutory requirements to accept the lowest-price 'qualified' bid, with lots of supporting case law on 'fiduciary responsibility' of public monies -- _unless_ there is a demonstrable _compelling_ public policy reason to include scuh a preference. *VERY* few such survive a court challenge -- a 'set-aside' of a portion of the contracts for the 'preferred' group tends to have an equivalent effect and is much less expensive to implement. (a few percentage points on, say, 10-15% of the contracts is *far* less wasteful than circa 10% on _all_ contracts) I don't know of _any_ such bidding/contract 'preference' that has -not- been challenged in the courts. By a 'discrimminated against' vendor, in the case of government enditie, or by shareholders, in the case of private entities. I don't _think_ anybody has challenged hiring preferences for U.S. armed forces veterans, but I wouldn't be surprised if it _had_ been.
Re: Big Temporary Networks
Ok, as exciting as this all has been, it's grossly off topic now. Please retire the conversation to direct emails if you all want to keep arguing over it, m'kay? Thanks... -george On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com wrote: 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where employment is closed to those who are not union members. It does -not- prevent a 'union ship' -- where employees are required to join the union within a reasonable period =after= being hired. The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops nationwide. It further authorized individual states to outlaw union shops and/or agency shops. 23 states, including my fine home state of Virginia, have done so. False to fact on the last point. Many of the right-to-work states do -not- proscribe union shops. Thoe that do, almost invariably allow for an automatic/involuntary payroll deduction from non-union members covered by a collective bargaining agreement, payable to the union involved, which was a pro rata share of the direct costs of negotiting the collective agreement. Right-to-work also does not prevent an organization from requiring, by contractual agreement, that third parties performing work ON THE 0ORGANIZATION'S PREMISES, employ union labor for _that_ work. It cannot specify _what_ union (or local) however. In Illinois, which has not enacted a state right-to-work law, that's correct. Illinois, not having right-to-work, is irrelevant.grin In IOWA, where I grew up, and which has one of the strongest right-to-work laws in the country, union shops _are_ legal. As are 'on-site' union labor requirements. The family business (PR consulting) was heavily involved with the state Manufacturers Association (and the national org), and several other associations of large employers. I had access to *LOTS* of detailed info on the state of right-to-work, and collective- bargaining practices nation-wide. My remarks apply to the vast majority of right-to-work states. In Virginia, which has, there was just recently a big hullabaloo where the airports authority tried (and spectacularly failed) to place a union preference rule in their contracting process where bids from union shops would have a 10% preference versus bids from non union shops. Government entities run into all sorts of difficulties with _any_ such 'preference' biases in the bidding/contracting process -- there are statutory requirements to accept the lowest-price 'qualified' bid, with lots of supporting case law on 'fiduciary responsibility' of public monies -- _unless_ there is a demonstrable _compelling_ public policy reason to include scuh a preference. *VERY* few such survive a court challenge -- a 'set-aside' of a portion of the contracts for the 'preferred' group tends to have an equivalent effect and is much less expensive to implement. (a few percentage points on, say, 10-15% of the contracts is *far* less wasteful than circa 10% on _all_ contracts) I don't know of _any_ such bidding/contract 'preference' that has -not- been challenged in the courts. By a 'discrimminated against' vendor, in the case of government enditie, or by shareholders, in the case of private entities. I don't _think_ anybody has challenged hiring preferences for U.S. armed forces veterans, but I wouldn't be surprised if it _had_ been. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
more over, who cares? a /8 is less than 2 months rundown globally... and, once upon a time I constructed on this list a usecase for apple's /8 ... it's really not THAT hard to use a /8, it's well within the capabilities of a gov't to do so... especially given they PROBABLY have: o unclassified networks o secret networks o top secret networks o other networks I'm sure there's plenty of ways they could use the space in question. but we are so expert at minding other people's business randy
Re: Big Temporary Networks
So I just want to point out that this is an utterly irrelevant topic. Worldcon is full to the brim with really smart people who can build good networks, but in every place large enough to host a Worldcon the owners of the building make money selling Internet access and don't want competition. The very best we've been able to do was create an Internet Lounge with good connectivity, and even that isn't acceptable at most locations. when you borrow $5,000 from the bank, they own you. when you borrow $5,000,000, you own them. large conferences throw more weight and usually can do their own network. ymmv, of course. randy
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 9/18/12, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: Some people have to learn that not every address is only used on the Internet. According to the above there will be large swaths of IPv4 left at various large organizations who have /8's as they are not announced or as the article states it as there is no ASN. When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) Greets, Jeroen -- -JH
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. randy
Re: China Contact
I would check China Unicom. Griffin Dao is a good contact. griffin Dao griffin...@chinaunicom.cn Mike On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:16 AM, Olivier CALVANO o.calv...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I am search a supplier for Ethernet Link from Bejing to Singapore and changzhou to singapore Anyone have a contact for this ? (SingTel ? China Telecom ?) Thanks Olivier
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In message 34689.1348009...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wri tes: --==_Exmh_1348009609_2143P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:28 -0400, William Herrin said: In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html I complained about mapping the full 32-bits of IPv4 address into an IPv6 prefix. You responded, You say that like it's somehow a bad thing, and I'm simply not seeing a problem. Have you come around to my way of thinking that using 6RD with a full 32-bit IPv4 mapping is not such a hot idea? They're not in contradiction - you want a /28 so you can do 6RD, ARIN should let you do that. You want a /28 so you can do a non-6RD network plan, you should be allowed to do that too. But you don't get to deploy 6RD, and then complain that you don't have enough bits left when you try to do a non-6RD design. Or you could be a bit smarter and realize that you probably only actually *need* to use 16 or 20 bits of address for 6RD mapping and leave yourself 16 or 12 for other uses. AS1312 has 2 /16s, so we only need to map 16 bits of address and one more to indicate which /16 it was and the rest can be implicit. Which o f course still loses if you have more than a /8 or so, or if you have 1,495 little prefixes that are scattered all over the /0 But given that 6rd is DHCP this is all fixed with a little bit of programming. It's not like it's new stuff anyway. It also only has to be done once for each address block. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
Not to mention Ford Motor Company has 19.0.0.0/8, and there are no announcements for it whatsoever. There are other /8s like it...lots of them early allocations. Why ARIN doesn't revoke them is frankly baffling to me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. randy
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 9/18/2012 9:05 PM, Blair Trosper wrote: Not to mention Ford Motor Company has 19.0.0.0/8, and there are no announcements for it whatsoever. There are other /8s like it...lots of them early allocations. Why ARIN doesn't revoke them is frankly baffling to me. ARIN didn't assign them, so why (and on what grounds) would they be revoking them exactly? Matthew Kaufman
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. randy -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 9/18/2012 9:11 PM, Mike Hale wrote: this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? Haven't these two (UK) agencies already said that they *are* using the resources that are assigned? They just don't happen to be advertised to the Internet *you* are connected to, apparently. Matthew Kaufman
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, Mike Hale wrote: this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? Er, just because it isn't announced in the global routing tables doesn't mean it isn't used. I work for a company that has one of those early allocation /8s. It is densely packed with hosts of one kind or the other - but you can't reach (and there is no business need for anybody at all to reach) them except at an office location or having vpn'd in to the company intranet. I rather suspect that this is the case with most such early class A / B / C allocations that aren't currently routed .. if the corporation isn't defunct you can safely assume that especially the /8s are heavily used. It makes all kinds of sense to seek out and reclaim allocations from defunct corporations because if the individual RIRs don't, then various spammers and botmasters will, as we've seen time and again in the past few years. --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Mike Hale wrote: I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? Here's one: there's little to no legal basis for such reclamation so any such attempt would end up in the legal system. Take a gander at how long that might take. Now go look at the consumption rates for IPv4, and recognize that the relevance of reclaiming that space isn't likely to extend to even the first hearing for said court case. It's not worth the effort, for something that will eventually become valueless. And actually, not reclaiming the space will make it valueless even faster as IPv6 migration takes off. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
In message can3um4zgsbrl9k2snl0n6qdgp7ru_4dw_z1f0rq3bnbr1h8...@mail.gmail.com, M ike Hale writes: this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? Go back and re-read the entire thread. No one is arguing that unused resources shouldn't be returned. The problem is that people, including the person that started the petition that triggered this thread, have no idea about legitimate use that isn't visible on the publically visible routing tables. Routed = in use Not routed =/ not in use Mark On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. randy -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't publicly routable? Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm truly puzzled by this (other than the this is how our network works and we're not changing it argument). I can accept the legal argument (and I'm assuming that, in the original contracts for IP space, there wasn't a clause that allowed Internic or its successor to reclaim space). On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message can3um4zgsbrl9k2snl0n6qdgp7ru_4dw_z1f0rq3bnbr1h8...@mail.gmail.com, M ike Hale writes: this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? Go back and re-read the entire thread. No one is arguing that unused resources shouldn't be returned. The problem is that people, including the person that started the petition that triggered this thread, have no idea about legitimate use that isn't visible on the publically visible routing tables. Routed = in use Not routed =/ not in use Mark On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. randy -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
In message can3um4zmt2l8ummwqtdq1coxjxoyvgdqfvtmpgwg2ttmf87...@mail.gmail.com, M ike Hale writes: So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't publicly routable? Route announcements can be scoped. See NO-EXPORT. Just because _you_ can't see the announcement doesn't mean others can't see the announcement along with the rest of the publically announced networks. Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm truly puzzled by this (other than the this is how our network works and we're not changing it argument). IP addresses are not just assigned so that one can connect to the public internet. There are lots of other valid reasons for addresses to be assigned. Go look them up. They are documented in RFC's and at the RIR's. Mark I can accept the legal argument (and I'm assuming that, in the original contracts for IP space, there wasn't a clause that allowed Internic or its successor to reclaim space). On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message can3um4zgsbrl9k2snl0n6qdgp7ru_4dw_z1f0rq3bnbr1h8...@mail.gmail.com , M ike Hale writes: this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? Go back and re-read the entire thread. No one is arguing that unused resources shouldn't be returned. The problem is that people, including the person that started the petition that triggered this thread, have no idea about legitimate use that isn't visible on the publically visible routing tables. Routed = in use Not routed =/ not in use Mark On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address space on the internet is a Non-Use of IPv4 addresses, and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for non-connected usage. And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by connected networks.. If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just not route the addresses) this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. randy -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? QED the ipv4 pool is about gone, move to ipv6 nat sucks bigtime, big nats suck even bigger global bgp never converges all devices fail, often two or more at once 'private' routing announcements will leak unless there is an air gap get over it and get back to work moving packets randy
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale wrote: So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't publicly routable? Because you have private connectivity with other companies and you need guaranteed unique IP space. No, really, you can't implement NAT for every possible scenario and even if you could you'd need publicy routable space to NAT it to, or you run into the same collisions. I have worked at companies that have in excess of 4k private interconnections with their clients. Unique IP space is the only way to make this work. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
On 9/18/12, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote: I can accept the legal argument (and I'm assuming that, in the original contracts for IP space, there wasn't a clause that allowed Internic or its successor to reclaim space). Assume you have a public IPv4 assignment, and someone else starts routing your assignment... legitimately or not, RIR allocation transferred to them, or not. There might be a record created in a database, and/or internet routing tables regarding someone else using the same range for a connected network. But your unconnected network, is unaffected. You are going to have a hard time getting a court to take your case, if the loss/damages to your operation are $0, because your network is unconnected, and its operation is not impaired by someone else's use, and the address ranges' appearance in the global tables. -- -JH
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Sep 18, 2012, at 09:38 , Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote: On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis wrote: Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area of the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat manner... Davis Beeman On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;) I meant real-world application. Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary. Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32. Owen What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices on the moon or at other locations in space. Jason The IP protocol is not well suited to space travel. As such, I think there would be a non-address based scaling limit in IPv6 for that application and a new protocol would be needed. Owen
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
I won't dispute that, but let's look at some of the densest uses of it, factoring in the vertical aspects as well... Let's assume an 88 story sky scraper 1 city block square (based on an average of 17 city block/mile). That's 96,465 sq. feet (8,961,918 sq. cm.) total building foot print. Subtract roughly 1,000,000 sq. cm. for walls, power, elevators, risers, etc leaves us with 7,961,918 sq. cm. per floor. Figure in a building that large, you probably need 5 floors for generators, 8 floors for chiller plants, and another 2 floors or more for other mechanical gives us a total of 73 datacenter floors max. (Which I would argue is still unrealistic, but what the heck). Subtract 1/3rds of the datacenter area for PDUs and CRAC units puts us at 5,307,945 sq. cm. per floor. FIguring a typical cabinet occupancy area + aisles of 2'x6' (small on the aisles, actually) gives us 12 sq. ft per cabinet = 11,148 sq. cm. per cabinet so we get roughly 715 cabinets per floor (max) and let's assume each 1U server holds 1000 virtual hosts at 42 servers per cabinet, that's 30,030 addresses per cabinet. Multiplied by 75 floors, that's a building total of 2,252,250 total addresses needed. We haven't even blown out a single /64 (and that's without allowing for the lower address density on routers, core switches, etc.). Let's assume we want to give a /64 to each server full of virtual hosts, we're still only taliking about 53,625 /64s, so the whole building can still be addressed within a /48 pretty easily (unless you think you have more than 12,000 additional point-to-point/other administrative/infrastructure links within the building in which case, you might need as much as a /47.) In terms of total addresses per cm, 2,252,250 addresses spread over the building footprint of 8,961,918 sq. cm. is still only 0.25 addresses per sq. cm. so it falls well short of the proposed 2 addresses per sq. cm. To even achieve the suggested 2 addresses per sq. cm, you would need to make the building 704 stories tall and still dense-pack every possible sq. foot of the building with datacenter and you'd have to put these kinds of buildings EVERYWHERE on earth, including over the oceans. I'm willing to say that based on that math, there are more than enough addresses for virtually any rational addressing scheme. Owen On Sep 18, 2012, at 09:01 , Beeman, Davis davis.bee...@integratelecom.com wrote: Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area. The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface area of the earth is silly, as we do not utilize the surface of the earth in a flat manner... Davis Beeman On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2 addresses per square cm? Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;) I meant real-world application. Orbits are limited due to the required combination of speed and altitude. There are a limited number of achievable altitudes and collision avoidance also creates interesting problems in time-slotting for orbits which are not geostationary. Geostationary orbits are currently limited to one object per degree of earth surface, and even at 4x that, you could give every satellite a /48 and still not burn through a /32. Owen
Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
You know what sucks worse than NAT? Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;) To everyone: Thanks for the clarifications. I don't necessarily agree with some of the arguments...but since I'm not fortunate enough to be in possession of a /8, that agreement (or lack thereof) is worth the electrons this email is sent with (less so, even). The assumption behind my original question is that the IP space simply isn't used anywhere near as efficiently as it could be. While reclaiming even a fraction of those /8s won't put off the eventual depletion, it'll make it slightly more painless over the next year or two. Is that worth the effort required in getting them back? *shrug* Probably not? At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll stop derailing the thread now. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them back to the general pool? QED the ipv4 pool is about gone, move to ipv6 nat sucks bigtime, big nats suck even bigger global bgp never converges all devices fail, often two or more at once 'private' routing announcements will leak unless there is an air gap get over it and get back to work moving packets randy -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
6rd itself isn't inherently silly. Mapping your customers onto an entire /32 is. You're much better off taking the size of your largest prefix and assigning a number of bis for the number of prefixes you have. For example, if you have /14, /14, /15, /16, /16, /16, /18, /19, /20, /22, /22, /22, /22, /23 and need to deploy 6rd, you could easily fit that into a 48-18=30 (round up to 28) - 4 (14 prefixes) = /24. Let's say your /24 is 2001:db00::/24. Your /14s would map to 2001:db00::/28 and 2001:db10::/28. Your 15 would map to 2001:db20::/28 Your 16s would map to 2001:db30::/28, 2001:db40::/28, 2001:db50::/28. The 18, 19, and 20 would get 2001:db60:::/28 - 2001:db80::/28. The 22s would get 2001:db90::/28 - 2001:dbc0::/28. The /23 would get 2001:dbd0::/28 and you'd still have 2001:dbe0 through 2001:dbff available. (2 extra /28s). Note, that's with the assumption of mapping 6rd onto /48s. If you want to map 32 bits, then, you need to degrade your customers 6rd experience and give them smaller blocks until you can give them real IPv6 service. I do not support address policy to make poor planning easier. Owen On Sep 18, 2012, at 15:18 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said: Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits. Film at 11. Silly reason? Hardly! 6RD lets you deploy IPv6 immediately to all customers. It's a stateless tunnel. Direct the packets into an encapsulator and any customer who wants them need only catch them on their IPv4 address. Without you having to change out anything else in your network. Hitch is: if you have a whole lot of discontiguous IPv4 prefixes, sorting which maps to where in a compact IPv6 prefix is challenging. Much easier to just map the entire IPv4 space and be done with it. Poor plan. But much easier. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for convenience within our 6RD network. So that leaves us 16 bits. But we don't want the native network to overlay the 6RD network because we want a real simple /16 route into the nearest 6rd encapsulator. And we don't want to advertise multiple BGP prefixes either. So we claim another bit and allocate our native infrastructure from the /16 that doesn't overlap the 6rd setup. No, you really don't. This absurdity (and the ridiculous design of 6RD) are so problematic in this area that I cannot begin to describe what a terrible idea it is. In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html I complained about mapping the full 32-bits of IPv4 address into an IPv6 prefix. You responded, You say that like it's somehow a bad thing, and I'm simply not seeing a problem. Have you come around to my way of thinking that using 6RD with a full 32-bit IPv4 mapping is not such a hot idea? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
