On 18.02.15, 00.29, Lorenzo Colitti
lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote:
Ragnar, what do you expect will get your network to move IPv6-only eventually?
You likely won't still be running native IPv4 in 2030. How will you get there?
Very good question, Lorenzo. I am actually not
On 2/18/2015 11:04 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 18/02/15 09:29, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart
fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party
development company to make the controller and API's. They did not
even think of
On 18/02/15 09:29, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
A quick example; A good friend of mine is developing a smart
fireplace which can be controlled via API's. He do use a 3. party
development company to make the controller and API's. They did not
even think of IPv6 until I did my 5 minute speech about
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:04:32PM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
Don't get me started on SCADA systems.
[..]
There is a woeful lack of ability in this bit of the industry. I'd love
a big player to come in and blow the market sky high.
The next truly big exploit for these piles of junk will
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar
ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no wrote:
We are deploying IPv6 (soon) and we are not buying IPv4 for postponing
IPv6 rollout.
Obviously, if buying IPv4 addresses costs less and is higher quality than
something like MAP-E, then it makes sense to buy
On 17.02.15, 16.19, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.commailto:cb.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Simply: buying ipv4 not only feeds the global digital divide, it actively
hurts those that are trying to make a more inclusive global end-to-end
internet. Users dont know or care about ipv4. Great businesses dont
On 13 Feb 2015, at 15:49, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
But you're right, this has gone off-topic. The point was that IPv6 makes this
situation - person-to-person networking - better than in the NAT44 world, and
would improve e.g. internet gaming.
Right, and a gamer will want
On 14.02.15, 19.39, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
From our perspective, doing investments on CGN/AFTR technology now can
almost be comparable with buying address, as we must consider
deprecation on the equipment anyways. If we can wait a bit longer and
the IPv4 traffic lowers to for
A few things, 1) interest payments presupposes that one loans money to buy
addresses, 2) as long as 40% of all traffic is still IPv4 for DS enabled
customer, we need a fairly sizable CGN/AFTR setup.
From our perspective, doing investments on CGN/AFTR technology now can almost
be
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote:
Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific
and somehow exempt IPv4?
I read the original concern as if they force DR on us, and we run a
CGN, it will not be possible / too expensive / ... to log the NAT
Thus wrote Gert Doering (g...@space.net):
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote:
Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific
and somehow exempt IPv4?
I read the original concern as if they force DR on us, and we run a
CGN, it will not be
Am 12.02.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Eric Vyncke (evyncke):
Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To
mimick NAT44 ?
I afraid so.
Regarding to
http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/C/4/AC4484B8-AA16-446F-86F8-BDFC498F8732/Xbox%20One%20Technical%20Details.docx
On 13.02.15, 10.03, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:37:09PM -0800, Erik Kline wrote:
Sure this potential Data Retention Directive will not be IPv6-specific
and somehow exempt IPv4?
I read the original concern as if they force DR on us, and we run a
CGN, it
On 12.02.15, 23.37, Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian
content providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites,
and the potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some
sort of Data Retention
On 12.02.15, 22.53, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
There's a non-zero amount of end customers who *do* care about IPv6.
After all, you do have a opt-in service which several thousand of your
customers did actually opt in to - so it would seem to me that several
thousands of your own customers
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson se...@google.com wrote:
On the contrary, it gives you a great single point to log everything.
I'm sure PST will be thrilled.
Plus, too expensive is only a problem for the carriers, not for the vendors.
Adding a way to dump the state of the
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
so I guess clients need to try a few times and not listen to the (initial)
ICMP messages until the hole is open.
That sounds slightly broken as well.
I agree. Do you
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the
result is the problem for some gamers.
So I guess applications should use the same technique as one does to
traverse NAT44:s, ie both ends of the connection send packets to each
On 13/02/15 11:26, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
and the practice in Germany to blocking all IPv6-inbound traffic the
result is the problem for some gamers.
So I guess applications should use the same technique as one does to
traverse NAT44:s, ie both
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Phil Mayers wrote:
None of this should be a problem for non-NATed IPv6. The absence of NAT
will mean an ICMP error doesn't block a NAT translation - there's no
such thing to block - so a CPE can send errors or not.
Ah, thanks for pointing that out.
So currently there
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
How to introduce it to existing customers, you might ask? Maybe just
ask them? Send an SMS saying 20% off your next bill if you give up your
IPv4 address (and enable IPv6?), pointing out it's not binding and can
be re-enabled at
On 13/02/15 13:27, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Packet reaches HGW2, which has no flow state, and is dropped. ICMP error
message might be created.
In case of ICMP error message, U1 should ignore this.
That's an application-layer issue. It all depends on how they're talking
to the socket API.
Tore,
In an ideal world, all your statements are true, and for us who has been
roaming the IPv6 forums and meetings the last year knows all this.
However, the business side does not see it the same way we do, and that is
something we all have to deal with and why we are moving so slowly.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:12:31PM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
As above, depends on how they're using the socket API. As a rule for
UDP connections, you actually have to put *more* work in to see ICMP
errors. It's certainly possible to ignore them.
FWIW, at least on Linux, if you keep doing
On 13/02/15 14:37, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
Why a discussion to drill the firewall with very tricky things?
(it's sound to me like the same sh... stun and other legacy ipv4 horrors.)
In my opinion the firewall should be configurable (unfortunately
DTAG-speedport-series, including the
On 12.02.15, 14.14, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the
3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling
them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
since it's v4-only, we
On 12.02.15, 12.24, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start
shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those
reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs).
However, once you have implemented
Is it related to the paranoid option of blocking all inbound traffic? To
mimick NAT44 ?
-éric
On 12/02/15 14:00, Thomas Schäfer tho...@cis.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com:
This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers
mostly
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the
3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling
them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
since it's v4-only, we need to seriously throttle it to avoid overloading
our
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
premium?
When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my
Gert,
So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
premium?
When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my
current NATed IPv4 connection does?
Today!
(I'm
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
postulate that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that
end-users who are trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.
You mean, trained to see their
Mikael,
But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll postulate
that we can make A+P / shared IPv4 work good enough that end-users who are
trained to live behind a NATs will not notice.
Problem with that is that this doesn't work with anything that doesn't have
+P, so
* Anfinsen, Ragnar
I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more
IPv4 if we are moving towards IPv6?
IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start
shutting down IPv4 in parts of your
* Ole Troan
When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what
my current NATed IPv4 connection does?
If you, like me, like to play games online, and at some point find
yourself googling for the cause of connectivity problems (it is just
*so* *extremely* infuriating to have the
On Feb 12, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, olaf.bonn...@telekom.de
mailto:olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote:
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the
3 largest in a country) would start talking to
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM, olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote:
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the
3 largest in a country) would start talking to content providers, telling
them hey, you know, your content is quite popular with our users, but
since it's
Appreciate your feedback, but as long as the majority of Norwegian content
providers does not move on IPv6, including governmental sites, and the
potential risk of the Norwegian government implementing some sort of Data
Retention Directive, it makes sense to by addresses instead of doing
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my
current NATed IPv4 connection does?
Today!
[..]
But that's better value by making IPv4 work less good. and I'll
postulate that we can make A+P /
Hi!
[Gert wrote]
(I'm hearing more and more reports that the CGNs deployed by big german
cable ISPs are breaking SIP and IPSEC to IPv4-only targets for their
customers...)
Yes, they do break that. We had one case, where we replaced
IPsec with OpenVPN to overcome that issue.
KabelBW is
Ops list
Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 5:33 AM,
olaf.bonn...@telekom.demailto:olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote:
I wonder if it would make a difference if big eyeballs ISPs (among the
3 largest in a country) would start talking
On 12.02.15, 10.58, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
As Steinar pointed out: You can help speeding up the process by enabling
native IPv6 access for as many as possible (all?) of your subscribers
today.
I am sure you know that you can't completely skip the dual-stack phase,
and that's what you
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Anfinsen, Ragnar:
Sure, but this requires our product department to look at IPv4 as legacy
and stop caring about customers who do gaming and have their own servers
and such.
No. We should help them to migrate their games and own servers to IPv6.
One argument
Am 12.02.2015 um 13:40 schrieb erik.tarald...@telenor.com:
This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS
and DS-lite - because
On 12.02.15, 01.05, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.commailto:cb.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
I always cringe when folks say premium internet. Internet is always best
effort, we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for network
quality.
Sure, but doing CGN or equivalent reduces the best
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we still
need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many content
providers.
Amen. Frustrating as it is.
I wonder if it would make a
On 12.02.15, 09.16, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
premium?
Depends. Are you selling
* Thomas Schäfer
This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers
mostly demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of
DS-Lite. They have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow
teredo over DS and DS-lite - because xbox has problems with native
IPv6.
On 12.02.15, 01.11, Steinar H. Gunderson se...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4
if
we are moving
list
Subject: Re: Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:11:21PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
However, we are there soon, but it does not change the fact that we
still need to keep our IPv4 running, due to the slow movement of many
content
Am 12.02.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Tore Anderson:
And then if the gamer
then starts googling this «IPv6» thing he might find out that it
abolishes the hated NAT stuff entirely, and suddenly Microsoft's
statement makes perfect sense to him, and he will actually end up
actively *wanting* IPv6.
This
On 12/02/15 12:40, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote:
This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS
and DS-lite - because xbox
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, erik.tarald...@telenor.com wrote:
This might be so in Norway. In German customer portals the gamers mostly
demand ipv4 (public ipv4 address to their home) instead of DS-Lite. They
have already native IPv6 but avm was forced to allow teredo over DS
and DS-lite - because xbox
So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
premium?
When will IPv6 provide me as an end-user with more value than what my current
NATed IPv4 connection does?
Best regards,
Ole
signature.asc
Hi guys.
I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
we are moving towards IPv6?
A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the
need to eventually buy more IPv4
Hello,
Le 11 févr. 2015 à 21:42, Anfinsen, Ragnar a écrit :
Hi guys.
I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
we are moving towards IPv6?
A quick background; We are having
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar
ragnar.anfin...@altibox.no wrote:
Hi guys.
I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
we are moving towards IPv6?
A quick background; We
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +, Anfinsen, Ragnar wrote:
I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
we are moving towards IPv6?
Maybe because the move is going too slowly?
Case in
58 matches
Mail list logo
