Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
* Cameron Byrne FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early- So much for next generation technology ... Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE. So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems. *sigh* -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote: So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems. The problem I have seen is not to get IPv6/dual stack in LTE (this worked from day one), it's to get dual stack working in all the cases with bearer establishment and handover between 2G/3G and 4G. 2G/3G is fully integrated with each other, but LTE is still kind of separate, vendors are just now getting around to producing mobile core nodes that support all of them with a single node for each function. Would you want to get IPv6 when you're in the LTE network but lose it when you were handed over to 2G/3G. My guess is not, so I believe providers will wait until that is really done. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobile-users-an-hour-2012-10 dream big /bill On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: * Cameron Byrne FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early- So much for next generation technology ... Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE. So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems. *sigh* -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
* Mikael Abrahamsson Would you want to get IPv6 when you're in the LTE network but lose it when you were handed over to 2G/3G. Absolutely. That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all? I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more consistent user experience. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote: That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all? Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G-3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive. The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech. I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more consistent user experience. I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more (because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream. Consistent behaviour (apart from speed) on all networks is really important for me, and I'd imagine it is for most users as well. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
On 10/11/2012 8:44 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote: That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all? Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G-3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive. If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address family assignment as well. Unfortunately, TCP - upon which ssh is built - uses the routing identifiers as the host identifiers, and so this doesn't work. The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech. I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more consistent user experience. I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more (because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream. But the stream would almost certainly be coming to a newly assigned IP address (and once you're doing that, who cares if the family changes too?) Consistent behaviour (apart from speed) on all networks is really important for me, and I'd imagine it is for most users as well. The *only* inconsistency would be when you're accessing the IPv6-only part of the Internet, of which there's currently none that consumers care about. Matthew Kaufman
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Matthew Kaufman wrote: If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address family assignment as well. Why would there be an address change in a handover? That is definitely not expected behaviour. But the stream would almost certainly be coming to a newly assigned IP address? Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row. The *only* inconsistency would be when you're accessing the IPv6-only part of the Internet, of which there's currently none that consumers care about. If a user is accessing a stream from an IPv6 enabled CDN that stream shouldn't be reset just because a handover happened. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row. For that to be true wouldnt support for IPv6 need to be in all generations of networks. With that standard in place there can not be new protocols without retrofitting. For a user to switch from 6 to 4 would require and address change however that address change would be reliant on DNS which would be out of the scope of network grade support. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Matthew Kaufman wrote: If your SSH sessions could survive a change in address assignment (which often happens in a handover), they could survive a change in address family assignment as well. Why would there be an address change in a handover? That is definitely not expected behaviour. But the stream would almost certainly be coming to a newly assigned IP address? Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row. The *only* inconsistency would be when you're accessing the IPv6-only part of the Internet, of which there's currently none that consumers care about. If a user is accessing a stream from an IPv6 enabled CDN that stream shouldn't be reset just because a handover happened. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Bryan Tong Nullivex LLC | eSited LLC (507) 298-1624
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
* Mikael Abrahamsson On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote: That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all? Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G-3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive. In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop. Get in range of a known WiFi network? Sessions drop. If you want to make an app for mobile, you better be able to recover. So for me, this is hardly a concern. Still, I'll grant you that you that you and I might have different priorities here. I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4. The session mobility problem will not go away completely by upgrading the 2G/3G part of the network, too. As I understand it, there's no shortage of devices on the market that only supports IPv6 on LTE, but not on 3G. Apple's iPhones and iPads, for example. So while it won't be the network's fault, it doesn't really matter - from the end users's point of view, the exact same thing will happen. Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But no. The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech. Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both. I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too, for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a more consistent user experience. I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more (because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream. I'm not watching a YouTube stream to see a still frame with a buffering... animation on top, so if I roam into 2G while watching something, I'll be putting my phone away anyway. Whether or not I actually lose the TCP connection is besides the point, the application is useless anyway. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Bryan Tong wrote: Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row. For that to be true wouldnt support for IPv6 need to be in all generations of networks. With that standard in place there can not be new protocols without retrofitting. For a user to switch from 6 to 4 would require and address change however that address change would be reliant on DNS which would be out of the scope of network grade support. The goal is to have dual stack in all networks. Single stack IPv6 has worked for a long time in 2G/3G/4G (I did first trials 2 years ago, it's a non-brainer). It's the support for a dual stack bearer that is problematic. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote: * Mikael Abrahamsson On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote: That some features are available only on the most advanced access technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not, what's the point of upgrading at all? Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G-3G handover, and if they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive. In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop. I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone networks and how well they work. I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4. IPv4v6 on LTE is a no-brainer, I did first tests with that 1.5-2 years ago. IPv6 only on 2G/3G/4G also works well. Not that many devices with GA firmware supports this unfortunately. The session mobility problem will not go away completely by upgrading the 2G/3G part of the network, too. As I understand it, there's no shortage of devices on the market that only supports IPv6 on LTE, but not on 3G. Apple's iPhones and iPads, for example. So while it won't be the network's fault, it doesn't really matter - from the end users's point of view, the exact same thing will happen. Well, with the current end user device situation, focus is on usb dongles. They seem to support all combinations just fine. Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But no. Sure. But now you will probably have a 4G router with NAT44, with no IPv6 support at all. I'd gladly take hints of devices with proper IPv4v6 support in this area. The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech. Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both. Yes we could, and we will. Just because someone isn't doing it *now* doesn't mean it won't be done in the not so distant future. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
* Mikael Abrahamsson In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop. I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone networks and how well they work. Maybe. Welcome to Oslo. :-) I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4. IPv4v6 on LTE is a no-brainer, ...and that is *precisely* why it's so disappointing to see Telenor not supporting it from day one. Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But no. Sure. But now you will probably have a 4G router with NAT44, with no IPv6 support at all. I'd gladly take hints of devices with proper IPv4v6 support in this area. I don't know of any 4G routers at all, but what I do know is that any 4G router with NAT44 and no IPv6 support would work just fine in an LTE network that also supported IPv6/IPv4v6. What I also do know is that if you do manage to get your hands on a dual-stack capable router (or any other mobile device really), its IPv6 capabilities will *not* work on an LTE network with no IPv6/IPv4v6 bearer support. The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get access to new L3 tech. Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both. Yes we could, and we will. Just because someone isn't doing it *now* doesn't mean it won't be done in the not so distant future. We could have had it available on LTE *now* and in a not so distant future on 2G/3G. Doing it incrementally like that would not break any current IPv4-only stuff, so I don't understand how it's problematic. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Re: Wired access to SMS?
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote: Instead, purchase a cellular USB modem with a standard plan. All 4 major carriers provide APIs to interact with the modems, and you get everything you need*. They aren't cheap (something in the neighborhood of $30/month), * but they work, they are reliable, and you have a committed telecom corp dedicated to keeping uptime high, and the API up-to-date. .. Just my $0.03, If his need is mission critical, and $30/mo breaks the bank .. I'd respectfully submit that there wasn't much of a mission.. :-p I do agree, tho, that an external / serial / aybe-usb gsm device is the route to pursue. I also '+1' / 'bump' the earlier suggestion that the OP (bill) look into Twilio. Their level of support/interaction/help/you-name-it sets standards I wish everyone lived by, and Twilio ease of use reliability is second to none, or, at the least, one of a very few. -- jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j - reverse it. ish.
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
Subscription only, $199/year (special introductory offer, normally $499!). Try it free for two weeks but only if you cough up info. How about a summary for those of us who are disinclined to do either? -r bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes: https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobile-users-an-hour-2012-10 dream big /bill On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: * Cameron Byrne FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early- So much for next generation technology ... Yesterday, Telenor launched LTE. So. With a green-field deployment, in their home market (supposed to be the first of their tree-digit million subscribers world-wide to get all the cool new tech), built on 3GPP specs that fully supports IPv6, already proven to work by other pioneers (^5 VzW), for which there are plenty of compatible devices (again, ^5 VzW), and plenty of compatible content (^5 ISOC, et al.), four months after World IPv6 Launch (in which they participated), and one month after their RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses...launching without IPv6 support was a perfectly natural and sensible thing for them to do, it seems. *sigh* -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
* Tore Anderson (tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com) wrote: * Mikael Abrahamsson In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a tunnel? Sessions drop. I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone networks and how well they work. Maybe. Welcome to Oslo. :-) But then, if I remember correctly, Telenor choose to go all-in with one of the Chinese vendors.. I am really interested to see how that plays out. /Joakim
[NANOG-announce] Seeking NANOG Communications Committee candidates for upcoming elections and my farewell
Greetings NANOG friends and colleagues! This month, elections will take place at NANOG 56 in Dallas, TX. There are currently two open positions available on the NANOG Communications Committee for the upcoming term. Some brief information about the Committee and what we are seeking: The Communications Committee will consist of at least three members selected by the Board of Directors. Members of the Communications Committee may not serve concurrently on the Board of Directors. The chairperson of the Communications Committee will serve ex officio in a non-voting role on the Board of Directors, in order to facilitate communication between the two groups. One of the primary functions of Communications Committee is the maintenance of a community mailing list (the NANOG operators list). The Communications Committee will be responsible for the administration and minimal moderation of the list. The Board of Directors will select the new Communications Committee members after the election in October. Two positions are to be filled. The main NANOG mailing list serves an important role in the community by providing a day-to-day forum for network operators. Participating as a member of the Communications Committee gives you the opportunity to make a noticeable contribution. All candidates will be asked to complete a questionnaire about their qualifications, and to submit a Declaration of Candidacy (DoC), which is available at https://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2012elections/2012_Declaration_of _Candidacy.docx. Communications Committee Member Responsibilities may be viewed at http://www.nanog.org/governance/CC_Member.pdf. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly as well. Personally, I will not be able to run again as I have now served two terms (four years) on the Committee and will be termed out. It has been a pleasure serving the members of NANOG and the Board of Directors during these last four years, from when I first started on the Mailing List Committee and watched over the transformation into what is now the Communications Committee. I'd like to thank the NANOG community for giving me this opportunity as it has certainly been an enjoyable experience. I hope to serve the community again in the future. Regards, Randy Epstein Chair, NANOG Communications Committee ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
logistics ml?
so is there a meeting logistics ml for attendees (as there is for ietf)? i was asked when i registered, but have seen nothing. e.g. i am scheduled to land dfw on sunday 14:00ish and want to ride share into town. randy
Roy Bates, Prince Roy of Sealand, dies at 90.
+++ ATH0 http://goo.gl/EdN3C [SealandGov.org] also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/10/prince-sealand-dies -j -- sharp, dry wit and brash in his dealings with contestants. - Forbes /* - teh jamie. ; uri - http://about.me/jgr */ California Voter? Vote YES on Prop 34. http://YesOn34.org/
Re: Roy Bates, Prince Roy of Sealand, dies at 90.
Last I heard sealand was defunct I remember the hosting havenco went dark I thought sealand shutdown too On Oct 11, 2012 10:59 AM, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote: +++ ATH0 http://goo.gl/EdN3C [SealandGov.org] also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/10/prince-sealand-dies -j -- sharp, dry wit and brash in his dealings with contestants. - Forbes /* - teh jamie. ; uri - http://about.me/jgr */ California Voter? Vote YES on Prop 34. http://YesOn34.org/
Re: Roy Bates, Prince Roy of Sealand, dies at 90.
As a Lord of Sealand, I can assure you Sealand is not defunct. :) Randy On 10/11/12 11:12 AM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote: Last I heard sealand was defunct I remember the hosting havenco went dark I thought sealand shutdown too On Oct 11, 2012 10:59 AM, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote: +++ ATH0 http://goo.gl/EdN3C [SealandGov.org] also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/10/prince-sealand-dies -j -- sharp, dry wit and brash in his dealings with contestants. - Forbes /* - teh jamie. ; uri - http://about.me/jgr */ California Voter? Vote YES on Prop 34. http://YesOn34.org/
Re: Verizon's New Repair Method: Plastic Garbage Bags
On Aug 20, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: For a while we have had a customer with some lines which go down every time it rains. We put in the trouble ticket, a couple of days later Verizon says the issue is resolved...until the next time it rains. The customer sent us some pictures today of the pole outside their office. The repair appears to be wrapping some plastic bags around something up on the pole. Here is link to the pictures the customer sent us, in case anyone in the mood for a good scare. http://rock.nyigc.net/verizon/ I was just walking home to see similar craftsmanship (garbage bags and all) on two poles behind our new apartment. I believe this is ATT territory in Chicago Pole 1 - there is literally a rat/squirrel/bird nest behind the wiring: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KqNM2R3MOnQ/UHb7Sk3FPmI/G84/XVDEXZTdCWo/s1126/IMG_20121011_114845.jpg https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Nwe3xErIU4o/UHb7Su66QLI/G84/fOl6fzEy1lM/s1126/IMG_20121011_114848.jpg https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-sDjLkDdDt9w/UHb7SuQq-jI/G84/RAUtBJUeENE/s1126/IMG_20121011_114855.jpg Pole 2 (not quite as bad): https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-wONWhhi4q9c/UHb7SrnX0ZI/G84/XcgxT9hDvvw/s1126/IMG_20121011_114926.jpg
Re: Roy Bates, Prince Roy of Sealand, dies at 90.
James Grimmelmann's recent write up is worth reading http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035context=james_grimmelmann j On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Randy Epstein na...@hostleasing.netwrote: As a Lord of Sealand, I can assure you Sealand is not defunct. :) Randy On 10/11/12 11:12 AM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote: Last I heard sealand was defunct I remember the hosting havenco went dark I thought sealand shutdown too On Oct 11, 2012 10:59 AM, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote: +++ ATH0 http://goo.gl/EdN3C [SealandGov.org] also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/10/prince-sealand-dies -j -- sharp, dry wit and brash in his dealings with contestants. - Forbes /* - teh jamie. ; uri - http://about.me/jgr */ California Voter? Vote YES on Prop 34. http://YesOn34.org/ -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Verizon's New Repair Method: Plastic Garbage Bags
- Original Message - From: Ryan Rawdon r...@u13.net On Aug 20, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: For a while we have had a customer with some lines which go down every time it rains. We put in the trouble ticket, a couple of days later Verizon says the issue is resolved...until the next time it rains. The customer sent us some pictures today of the pole outside their office. The repair appears to be wrapping some plastic bags around something up on the pole. Here is link to the pictures the customer sent us, in case anyone in the mood for a good scare. http://rock.nyigc.net/verizon/ I was just walking home to see similar craftsmanship (garbage bags and all) on two poles behind our new apartment. I believe this is ATT territory in Chicago This isn't news in GTE territory, at least; I've seen them use contractor garbage bags -- or something akin to them -- and tie-wraps, to close broken pedestals, and occasionally aerial closures, for at least 30 years; GTE was Cut-To-Clear all the way back to the 80s, and maybe into the 70s. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Roy Bates, Prince Roy of Sealand, dies at 90.
James Grimmelmann's recent write up is worth reading http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035context=james_grimmelmann j Octal gave a talk at Defcon or HOPE a few years in a row about Sealand. The last one he spilled the beans on how bad Sealand did. Managerial and customer base wise. IIRC for months the entire internet connection was done over a cell phone at 9600bps or some such. He went into some details about difficulties of the idea (banks won't accept you.) One of the most memorable talks I've seen. - Ethan O'Toole
Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
On 2012-10-11 23:02 , Jo Rhett wrote: I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? A /64 is for a single link (broadcast domain, though with IPv6 multicast domain is more appropriate). A /48 (or /56 for end-users for some of the RIRs) is for a single end-site (a different administrative domain and/or a different physical location). If you thus have 5 end-sites, you should have room for 5 /48s and thus a /47 is what you can justify. If you though are not able to do transit / routing between those sites as they are not connected one might want to get separate PI /48s for them. But likely if you are in that camp, just asking for address space, that you can use stably for a long time, from your network provider who provides you connectivity is a better way to go. Greets, Jeroen
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
--- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: From: Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? A /48 is 65536 /64s and a /44 is 16x65536 /64s. If you only need one subnet (1 subnet = 1 /64), why would you try to get 16x65536 subnets, rather than the 65536 you have in the /48? scott
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
--- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: From: Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? A /48 is 65536 /64s and a /44 is 16x65536 /64s. If you only need one subnet (1 subnet = 1 /64), why would you try to get 16x65536 subnets, rather than the 65536 you have in the /48? scott He said it was for multiple sites. Per ARIN policy, the next biggest chunk from a /48 is a /44, so a /44 is what should be asked for. It is perfectly justifiable if you have more than 1 site. I would not expect anything smaller than a /48 to be allowed in BGP. A bonus would be that a /44 currently costs the same as a /48 for an enduser, so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having enough space to not have to worry about it in the future. -Randy
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
First: But likely if you are in that camp, just asking for address space, that you can use stably for a long time, from your network provider who provides you connectivity is a better way to go. Um, sorry I figured by the fact that I was posting on Nanog the context was clear, but I've forgotten how Nanog is now a go-to source for home network too :( The context was for what Nanog was originally intended for: We are provider-independent and peering around the world. On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: A /64 is for a single link …(snip)... A /48 (or /56 for end-users for some of the RIRs) is for a single end-site Sorry, I wasn't looking for the breakdown of expected usage. I know those maps. What I was asking was whether you can PI-route a /56 or anything less than a /48 today. It's nice to have a few dozen of the entire Internet for each site, but totally unnecessary. If you thus have 5 end-sites, you should have room for 5 /48s and thus a /47 is what you can justify. Really? One bit can flip that many ways? ;-) I assume you mean /45, and apparently ARIN's recommended size is /44 anyway. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having enough space to not have to worry about it in the future. It's only a worry if you can only route /48s, which was my question. And seriously, we're going to be banging around in the emptiness as compared to our IPv4 allocations. :) -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Hi Jo, The short answer to your question is: /48 is the longest prefix from a direct RIR assignment that everyone currently accepts via BGP. /32 is the longest prefix from an ISP allocation that everyone currently accepts via BGP. As with IPv4 /24's, some folks accept longer prefixes. Not everyone. Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? You need to ask for a /44. 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: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
one of the downsides to v6 is the huge amnt of space the folks expect you to announce. lots of space to do nefarious things. that said. if you select your peers carefully and don't mind a bit of hand crafting, you can /96 and even /112 that said, get a /32 and assign/announce /48s... /bill On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:02:17PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
--- rcar...@network1.net wrote: From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net --- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: From: Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is this still true? Is this likely to change in the immediate future, or do I need to ask for a /44? A /48 is 65536 /64s and a /44 is 16x65536 /64s. If you only need one subnet (1 subnet = 1 /64), why would you try to get 16x65536 subnets, rather than the 65536 you have in the /48? --- He said it was for multiple sites. --- DOH! Note to self: focus on the outage and don't respond to NANOG while troubleshooting. ;-) scott
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
- Original Message - On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having enough space to not have to worry about it in the future. It's only a worry if you can only route /48s, which was my question. And seriously, we're going to be banging around in the emptiness as compared to our IPv4 allocations. :) You can route /48 or shorter (larger) How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is perfect, unless some of those sites require more than a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-) -Randy
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is perfect, unless some of those sites require more than a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-) We're having a general math breakdown today. First Jeroen wants to fit 5 /48's in a /47 and now you want to fit 192 /48's in a /44. 48-44=4. 2^4=16. -Bill -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
Wow and I thought nibble boundaries would make the math easier than HD ratios. Here's the breakdown for those who are mathematically challenged: n sites prefix 0 Nothing. 1 /48 2-12/44 13-191 /40 192-3071/36 3072-49,151 /32 49,152-786,431 /28 If you're managing more than 786,431 sites, then you should be able to afford to hire someone who can properly handle the math. Owen
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
- Original Message - On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is perfect, unless some of those sites require more than a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-) We're having a general math breakdown today. First Jeroen wants to fit 5 /48's in a /47 and now you want to fit 192 /48's in a /44. 48-44=4. 2^4=16. -Bill Yep... I don't know why, but I was thinking /40. So, 1 site = /48 2-12 sites = /44 13-192 sites = /40, and so on. NRPM 6.5.8.2 for details. /40 bumps you into the next price category, but it is a 1-time expense for endusers. -Randy
Re: Roy Bates, Prince Roy of Sealand, dies at 90.
Joly MacFie wrote: James Grimmelmann's recent write up is worth reading http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035context=james_grimmelmann So many incredible stories in there...thanks for posting that link.
Re: Is a /48 still the smallest thing you can route independently?
On 10/11/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is perfect, unless some of those sites require more than a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-) We're having a general math breakdown today. First Jeroen wants to fit 5 /48's in a /47 and now you want to fit 192 /48's in a /44. 48-44=4. 2^4=16. Right, last I checked the smallest integer = Log base 2 of 5 is not less than or equal to 1, therefore, you will never fit 5 /48s in the network just by subtracting 1 from the prefix length. if you want a prefix /yy that will accommodate a certain number N of /xx Then you must ensure that 2^(xx - yy) = N not 5^(xx -yy ) = N -Bill -- -J
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ Internally, it uses diodes that are reverse-biased just ever so close to the breakdown voltage such that they randomly flip state back and forth. Cheers, jof
Re: best way to create entropy?
Nature, via radio active decay! http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ -- Tim Edwards c: 206-604-5776 On Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others?
Re: best way to create entropy?
On 10/11/12, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are You are referring to the entropy pool used for /dev/random and crypto operations ? You could setup a video capture card or radio tuner card, tune it into a good noise source, and arrange for the bit stream to get written to /dev/random Because anything written to /dev/random gets mixed in / XOR'ed into the entropy pool some tasks better than others? -- -JH
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/11/12, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are You are referring to the entropy pool used for /dev/random and crypto operations ? You could setup a video capture card or radio tuner card, tune it into a good noise source, and arrange for the bit stream to get written to /dev/random Yes, but then you're also introducing a way for an external attacker to transmit data that can be mixed into your entropy pool. While certainly a cool hack, I don't think anything like this would be safe for cryptographic use. /two cents Cheers, jof
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:25:37PM -0700, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: Yes, but then you're also introducing a way for an external attacker to transmit data that can be mixed into your entropy pool. XORring predictable data to random data does not yield a predictable result. /dev/random is world writable so if writing to it causes the random generator to output something predictable it's a bug that needs to be fixed. Also, an analog TV receiver will always have some noise that is not predictable even if you are transmitting a known signal to it. If you seriously need good entropy for cryptography, I think you will not ask about it on nanog, and I'd be very wary of cheap hardware RNGs too.
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? I find that giving a screwdriver and a hammer to a child between the ages of 4 and 10 will usually do pretty well. Owen
Re: best way to create entropy?
On 10/11/2012 5:08 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ Internally, it uses diodes that are reverse-biased just ever so close to the breakdown voltage such that they randomly flip state back and forth. Cheers, jof Intel claims to include a hardware Digital Random Number Generator (DRNG) in its later generation chips. Is their offering inadequate/discredited? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RdRand http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391367,00.asp http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/embedded/innovation/security/walker-article-security http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital-random-number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide/
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Robert M. Enger na...@enger.us wrote: On 10/11/2012 5:08 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ Internally, it uses diodes that are reverse-biased just ever so close to the breakdown voltage such that they randomly flip state back and forth. Cheers, jof Intel claims to include a hardware Digital Random Number Generator (DRNG) in its later generation chips. Is their offering inadequate/discredited? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RdRand http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391367,00.asp http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/embedded/innovation/security/walker-article-security http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital-random-number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide/ that's good to know about. i'll have to remember it when tech moves along in a year or so. but, right now, i don't think i have that capability. also, i'd prefer to have a chip agnostic solution as a month or so ago, i wanted to create a key on a raspberry pi (should've just copied one over) and it took forever to generate enough entropy - even as i was compiling stuff. after that, i considered tcpdump.
Re: best way to create entropy?
In message 50776926.1030...@enger.us, Robert M. Enger writes: On 10/11/2012 5:08 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.c o.uk/ Internally, it uses diodes that are reverse-biased just ever so close to the breakdown voltage such that they randomly flip state back and forth. Cheers, jof Intel claims to include a hardware Digital Random Number Generator (DRNG) in its later generation chips. Is their offering inadequate/discredited? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RdRand http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391367,00.asp http://www.intel.com/p/en_US/embedded/innovation/security/walker-article-secu rity http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-digital-random-number-generato r-drng-software-implementation-guide/ Which is about time. It's not like this hasn't been needed for 10+ years. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: best way to create entropy?
On 10/11/12, Jonathan Lassoff j...@thejof.com wrote: Yes, but then you're also introducing a way for an external attacker to transmit data that can be mixed into your entropy pool. The binary operations used to 'mix in' data preserve entropy, when non-random data is mixed in, given the birwise operation A (+) B. The result is guaranteed to have entropy no less than the entropy of A, and also guaranteed to have entropy no less than the entropy of B. The transmitter/source of data does not control the system's administrative structures, so it is not possible for one source of data to reduce or compromise the entropy of an entropy pool. An external attacker would have to have a way of making the other sources of entropy unavailable, and make sure the system over-estimates the amount of remaining entropy, to ensure _no_ new entropy is available, other than their fake entropy. That risk is dwarfed by the risk of physical tampering, installation of remote bugs to steal key material, etc. While certainly a cool hack, I don't think anything like this would be safe for cryptographic use. These methods of generating entropy, when implemented reasonably, are far better than perfectly adequate for the generation of random numbers for one time pads, and cryptographic keys for long term use;for very high security purposes, as in 3-letter agency use, multiple independent sources of entropy are recommended. For high security applications, actions should always be contemplated to detect or protect against tampering with the hardware and software, or using software to steal key material. That may involve the use of smart cards, or dedicated single-purpose hardware security modules to generate and store keys, so a general purpose computer never has access to the keys, only a very simple one, that performs just the required crypto operations, when the proper number of authorized users prove their identity and ask the device to perform crypto operations. For applications that don't require that... RF noise from one source fed to /dev/random is highly adequate :) jof -- -JH
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:20:02 -0500, Jimmy Hess said: You could setup a video capture card or radio tuner card, tune it into a good noise source Finally, a good use for political talk radio. :) pgpGRW6vGgt7E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: best way to create entropy?
On 10/11/12 17:08 -0700, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ Internally, it uses diodes that are reverse-biased just ever so close to the breakdown voltage such that they randomly flip state back and forth. +1. -- Dan White
Re: best way to create entropy?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jonathan Lassoff j...@thejof.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ not sure how much others care about server entropy in general. however, after reading this: http://strugglers.net/~andy/blog/2010/06/06/adventures-in-entropy-part-1/ i'm basically sold on that entropykey. $30 for a entropy through electron tunneling with tons of failsafes wow. i might just have to get two so i can nail the other to a frame, hang it on a wall and geek out every now and again :)
RE: best way to create entropy?
I know that a popular method for generating random bit streams is to take radio (stellar) noise and convert it into a digital bit stream. Very popular among crypto geeks. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:55 PM To: Jonathan Lassoff Cc: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: best way to create entropy? On 10/11/12 17:08 -0700, Jonathan Lassoff wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: in the past, i've done many different things to create entropy - encode videos, watch youtube, tcpdump -vvv /dev/null, compiled a kernel. but, what is best? just whatever gets your cpu to peak or are some tasks better than others? Personally, I've used and recommend this USB stick: http://www.entropykey.co.uk/ Internally, it uses diodes that are reverse-biased just ever so close to the breakdown voltage such that they randomly flip state back and forth. +1. -- Dan White
Re: Native IPv6 providers/datacenters list?
On 10/9/2012 11:05 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Oct 9, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Ryan Rawdon r...@u13.net wrote: On Oct 9, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: I want to make an informed response to a comment made by our CenturyLink rep regarding IPv6, in the context of SAVVIS not being able to provide IPv6 at their DC3 facility: There is only a handful of carriers that can provide that service today and CenturyLink (Legacy Qwest) happen to be one of them. Is there a list of native IPv6 providers out there somewhere, particularly one that includes hosting data centers (e.g., SAVVIS), with which I could cluebat^Wshare with my rep? I'm not sure about a list of facilities, but here's a start for transit providers who should be able to provide IPv6 connectivity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers I'll come out in public and say that sometimes a backbone supports it but the datacenter group does not. This is quite common core - edge deployment strategy with network technology. Some technology can grow from the edges inward, but IPv6 is not a technology that does it [well]. I've been observing some big increases in IPv6 traffic (its no longer measured in Mbps as from years ago, but in Gbps). I'm waiting for it to approach a fair percentage of the IPv4 traffic but there are some big steps being made by the networks and edges to bridge this gap. - Jared Avoiding providers that can't provide a complete [*] IPv6 routing table is recommended too. The wiki URL provided by Christopher states quite clearly the limitations of using certain providers... [1] For varying levels of completeness
