On 2/9/12 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20120209091221.082cb...@resistor.net, SM writes:
Hi Chris,
At 08:57 AM 2/9/2012, Chris Grundemann wrote:
http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8
I am aware of the APNIC announcement. That's one out of
I don't want to go too far down this road, as it touches sensitive network
architecture issues, but I think you're thinking of this in terms of a
box. Please think, instead, of a regional network with failover
capabilities and widely distributed customers.The aggregate need is
(at least) a
On 12/7/11 11:39 AM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Benson == Benson Schliesser bschl...@cisco.com writes:
Benson However, there is one essential point that I'd like to
Benson clarify: We need a common standard for numbering CGN NAT444
Benson deployments.
Benson
We're requesting a /10, not a /12 or /15 (devices attached to one CGN
might use the whole /15). Such an allocation would be too small for a
regional CGN deployment at a larger ISP, and would likely result in
double-CGN. Shared CGN Space really needs to be a /10.
Second, many ISPs do not control
On 12/5/11 7:47 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 12/04/2011 19:10, Chris Donley wrote:
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions
is that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice
because the 10 part involves customer service work
On 12/5/11 2:13 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Monday, December 05, 2011 11:54 -0800 David Conrad
d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Bob,
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
So a CGN deployment is a new deployment and the ISPs choosing
to do this could make sure
Ron,
Please see in-line.
Chris
On 12/3/11 3:06 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- Is the reserved /10 required for the deployment of CGN?
No, but it simplifies operations, lowers risk, and reduces aggregate
demand. If you take ARIN's current burn rate of about a /10 per
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
the 10 part involves customer service work that those interested in
deploying CGN would like to avoid in order to protect their margins. I'm
not
Ralph,
I'm not sure what would take longer - getting new subscriber gws
supporting 240/4 or IPv6 into the field, and I know which one I'd prefer
vendor engineers to be working on ;-).
Chris
On 12/1/11 6:06 AM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Those subscriber GWs would have to
This is not a new proposal. People have been asking for the same thing
for a long time. Draft-bdgks does a good job spelling out the history
(below). To say that we're trying to change the rules at the last minute
is wrong. People have been asking for such an allocation considering this
use
Draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03:
+--++++--+--+
| Skype video | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| chat
+--++++--+--+
We tested it. Skype worked in our lab
Ron,
One point of clarification, in your *against* list, you include:
On 11/28/11 2:25 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- Some applications will break. These applications share the
characteristic of assuming that an interface is globally reachable if it
is numbered by an non-RFC
ranges
selected on a per-ISP basis.
Chris
From: Mark Townsley m...@townsley.netmailto:m...@townsley.net
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:02:34 -0700
To: Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.netmailto:rbon...@juniper.net, Chris
Donley c.don...@cablelabs.commailto:c.don...@cablelabs.com
Cc: IESG IESG i
some time before router
vendors include Shared CGN Space in their 6to4 code, but I believe that
it's better than the alternatives, for which the only solution is 6to4-pmt.
Chris
--
Chris Donley
CCIE, CISSP, SCiPM
Project Director - Network Protocols
CableLabs®
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO
On 8/19/11 3:42 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 09:10 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt as
15 matches
Mail list logo
