Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:46:16PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> Maybe there is another question this working group can answer:
> Does this working group recommend wifi deployments as NAT64? (of course
> only NAT64, not paired with dual stack on another SSID)
> - Is it recommended for a
>> The difference is that FOSDEM promotes the NAT64 SSID as the main one and
>> the dual stack SSID as the fallback.
>
>Yes. Which is exactly what we ask for . Just switch the default
>and see what happens.
>
>https://blogs.cisco.com/developer/fosdem-2019-a-new-view-from-the-noc
Maybe there is
* Philip Homburg (pch-rip...@u-1.phicoh.com) [191011 09:31]:
> >> Troopers runs their main conference wifi with NAT64. If I'm not
> >> mistaken, so does FOSDEM.
> >
> >True.
> >FOSDEM was Dualstack till 2013 and then switched to IPv6-only in 2014.
>
> FOSDEM is similar to the RIPE meeting in
*knock knock* is this mic on ?
Once upon a time during the FOSDEM post-conference gathering with organizers I
challenged the notion that the dual stack was the state of the art. The
organizers, being themselves in various tech roles, agreed. It was interesting
to get to those days bleeding
In your letter dated Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:56:12 +0200 you wrote:
>* Gert Doering (g...@space.net) [191009 19:57]:
>> Troopers runs their main conference wifi with NAT64. If I'm not
>> mistaken, so does FOSDEM.
>
>True.
>FOSDEM was Dualstack till 2013 and then switched to IPv6-only in 2014.
* Gert Doering (g...@space.net) [191009 19:57]:
> Troopers runs their main conference wifi with NAT64. If I'm not
> mistaken, so does FOSDEM.
True.
FOSDEM was Dualstack till 2013 and then switched to IPv6-only in 2014.
Bjørn
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:35 PM Carlos Friaças wrote:
> > ...writing this email from IPv6-only WiFi...
>
> Just out of plain curiosity: home environment, corporate environment, or
> something else (i.e. 3rd party-managed, like an airport, coffee-shop)?
Corporate.
--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:53:29AM +0200, Thomas Schäfer wrote:
> By the way: *single* SSID,
>
> What is the reason to provide
> "ripemtg" and "ripemtg-2.4-79"?
Somewhat wrong forum :-) - I think the issue was "band steering and funky
wifi drivers", and people could move their
By the way: *single* SSID,
What is the reason to provide
"ripemtg" and "ripemtg-2.4-79"?
Outside of Ripemeetings I don't see different IDs for the different wifi
frequencies.
e.g. the eduroam in Munich, with daily 5 Users in peak, works fine
without two separate SSIDs
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Jen Linkova wrote:
(...)
...writing this email from IPv6-only WiFi...
Just out of plain curiosity: home environment, corporate environment, or
something else (i.e. 3rd party-managed, like an airport, coffee-shop)?
Cheers,
Carlos
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:06 PM Job Snijders wrote:
> So... one of the ideas to be explored is that there is a only a
> *single* SSID, but through WPA-802.1X let the username decide what
> 'profile' you want.
[skip]
> There ALREADY is an IPv6-only+NAT64 Wifi SSID. Use it if you want to. If
>
Let me first start with an alternative suggestion, and then delve into
Sander's message itself.
At IETF meetings there are numerous experiments going on at any given
time too. Popping up an SSID for each experiment is not ideal, ever
changing SSID names, or having too many SSIDs is not
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:26:18PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >I would expect such devices mostly in a home network (gaming consoles
> >etc). On a business meeting network like RIPE the number of IPv4-only
> >devices is negligible.
>
> I'm confused how it can be a good thing to use a
Sander Steffann writes:
> I would expect such devices mostly in a home network (gaming consoles
> etc). On a business meeting network like RIPE the number of IPv4-only
> devices is negligible.
I guess there will be quite a few devices were people disable IPv6.
>> We cannot use DNS64 if we
>I would expect such devices mostly in a home network (gaming consoles
>etc). On a business meeting network like RIPE the number of IPv4-only
>devices is negligible.
I'm confused how it can be a good thing to use a different way to connect
to a RIPE meeting network then the one you would use at
Hi,
> Geert Jan de Groot wrote on 08/10/2019 12:56:
>> In the Netherlands, there is no mobile operator providing IPv6 connectivity.
>> None!
>
> That is technically _not_ true any-more.
>
> KPN *very recently* - 9/30/2019 - published information they are going to
> begin enabling v6 for
Hi Philip,
> In contrast NAT64 breaks existing systems in lots of subtle (and not so
> subtle) ways. We cannot use NAT64 if we expect IPv4-only devices.
I would expect such devices mostly in a home network (gaming consoles etc). On
a business meeting network like RIPE the number of IPv4-only
Philip Homburg writes:
> NAT64 is also not attractive from a backward compatibility point of view:
At the last meeting Enno talked[1] about plans for a large wireless
deployment running v6 only + NAT64 / DNS64. As I know which
"Supermarket" Enno is talking about:
If this would be deployed in
>It makes sense because the people interested to test this have already
>done so to the point of seeing no problems for themself. But that group
>is biased, probably running their services at home like vpn gateways at
>dual stack or IPv6-only already and therefore they might simply not
>encounter
Am 08.10.19 um 18:14 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker:
On the other hand, switching the "default" meeting SSID to IPv6-only/NAT64
while still providing the dual stack network as a fallback, preferably
combined with a helpdesk staffed by volunteers ready to analyze any
problems that attendees might have,
* Philip Homburg [191008 20:47]:
>> On the other hand, switching the "default" meeting SSID to IPv6-only/NAT64
>> while still providing the dual stack network as a fallback, preferably
>> combined with a helpdesk staffed by volunteers ready to analyze any
>> problems that attendees might have,
Geert Jan de Groot,
Geert Jan de Groot wrote on 08/10/2019 12:56:
In the Netherlands, there is no mobile operator providing IPv6
connectivity. None!
That is technically _not_ true any-more.
KPN *very recently* - 9/30/2019 - published information they are going
to begin enabling v6 for
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:47:37PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
> Considering those issues, why does it make sense to subject attendees of a
> RIPE meeting to such a network?
"Raise awareness" comes to mind...
Like "did your firewall vendor tell you that if you do VPN to your
dual-stacked
>On the other hand, switching the "default" meeting SSID to IPv6-only/NAT64
>while still providing the dual stack network as a fallback, preferably
>combined with a helpdesk staffed by volunteers ready to analyze any
>problems that attendees might have, strikes me as a pretty good opportunity
>to
* Job Snijders [191008 05:29]:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:05:18PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote:
>>> * Martin Schr?der (mar...@oneiros.de) [191007 19:13]:
Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht :
> If I can get
Hi,
there have been many great points made from the perspective of "edge
/ leaf networks" and end-user connectivity.
An equally important is the serving side. One aspect often discussed
are the availability of CDNs and major services. But another aspect are
various SaaS and other
On 10/8/19 8:28 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
Dear WG, I apologise for coming late to the party, a long weekend to blame..
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:53 AM Michel Py
wrote:
If you want a war that is your choice, but please go and fight it somewhere
else. RIPE
mailing lists are a place to be
In your letter dated Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:56:15 +0200 you wrote:
>In the Netherlands, there is no mobile operator providing IPv6
>connectivity. None! I cannot get IPv6 on my mobile connection!
KPN announced last week (September 30) that they started providing
mobile customers with IPv6. They seem
Folks,
I've been out of the ISP business for a while now, but may I make some
observations:
Many of the major content providers are IPv6-enabled. The question is
for end users, how to use IPv6 to access these services.
In the Netherlands, there is no mobile operator providing IPv6
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to first move this mailing list to an actual
> > ipv6-only environment?
>
> Bold move, but yes - why not?
I'm assuming this is sarcasm -- unless we really want to isolate
ourselves from the very people we should be reaching out to.
Rob
* Job Snijders (j...@ntt.net) [191008 05:37]:
> If folks are serious about killing dual-stack ...
Hmm, I would rephrase that to:
"If folks are serious about IPv6 and are willing to
set a real incentive for this community to have a
reality check and test their own infrastructure in
a safe
In your letter dated Mon, 7 Oct 2019 19:12:37 +0200 you wrote:
>Please start by eating your own dog food and make future RIPE meetings
>IPv6 only.
I'm curious, who's dog food is that?
None of the networks I connect to using wifi is 'IPv6-only'. I would love
to drop IPv4 support in the code I
You should know the difference between IPv6-only mailhosts and IPv6-only Wi-Fi + DNS64/NAT64.ThomasAm 08.10.2019 05:29 schrieb Job Snijders :On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:05:18PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote:
> > * Martin Schr?der
Dear WG, I apologise for coming late to the party, a long weekend to blame..
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:53 AM Michel Py
wrote:
> > If you want a war that is your choice, but please go and fight it somewhere
> > else. RIPE
> > mailing lists are a place to be constructive and, as Job said,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:05:18PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote:
> > * Martin Schr?der (mar...@oneiros.de) [191007 19:13]:
> > > Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht :
> > > > If I can get *one* person in this working group
Dave Taht writes:
Dave,
> If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
> also fix their bufferbloat) - I'll consider my participation in this
> thread a success.
you have to be strong now. Your
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:05:18PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote:
> * Martin Schr?der (mar...@oneiros.de) [191007 19:13]:
> > Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht :
> > > If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> > > local coffee shop and make ipv6
* Dave Taht (dave.t...@gmail.com) [191007 18:04]:
> If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
> also fix their bufferbloat) - I'll consider my participation in this
> thread a success.
[done] make
* Martin Schröder (mar...@oneiros.de) [191007 19:13]:
> Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht :
> > If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> > local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
>
> Please start by eating your own dog
work onto native IPv6 one of
> those successes
>
> Regards
>
> Bob
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Taht
> Sent: 07 October 2019 17:37
> To: Sleigh,R,Bob,VQI R
> Cc: Bjoern Buerger ; ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6
>
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed
Regards
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Dave Taht
Sent: 07 October 2019 17:37
To: Sleigh,R,Bob,VQI R
Cc: Bjoern Buerger ; ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:23 AM wrote:
>
> Congratulations on your contri
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:16 AM Job Snijders wrote:
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:04 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> > If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> > local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
> > also fix their bufferbloat)
Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht :
> If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
Please start by eating your own dog food and make future RIPE meetings
IPv6 only.
Best
Martin
Hi Enno
Not off the top of my head, but I'll ask around...
Regards
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Enno Rey
Sent: 07 October 2019 17:36
To: Sleigh,R,Bob,VQI R
Cc: dave.t...@gmail.com; b.buer...@penguin.de; ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group
r 2019 17:04
> To: Bjoern Buerger
> Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
>
> If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their local
> coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (an
ion to success Dave!
>
> Regards
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from my local coffee shop - using my EE Mobile over native IPv6
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-wg On Behalf Of Dave Taht
> Sent: 07 October 2019 17:04
> To: Bjoern Buerger
> Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their local
coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and also fix their
bufferbloat) - I'll consider my participation in this thread a success.
Dear Dave,
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:04 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
> local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
> also fix their bufferbloat) - I'll consider my participation in this
> thread a success.
If I can get *one* person in this working group to go down to their
local coffee shop and make ipv6 work by whatever means necessary (and
also fix their bufferbloat) - I'll consider my participation in this
thread a success.
* Mikael Abrahamsson (swm...@swm.pp.se) [191007 12:45]:
> On Android/iOS I'd say it's production ready.
Yes.
> On classic desktop OSes like MacOS, Windows and Linux it's not.
> The difference is the presence of widely available 464XLAT support.
>From my observation, that's correct.
* Gert Doering (g...@space.net) [191007 12:56]:
> I take a bit of offense here. We did what we could to "protect the
> newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is
> not enough v4, what else could we have done?
Let me answer this from the newcomer's side:
You did
Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote on 07/10/2019 12:28:
On 07.10.19 13:21, Job Snijders wrote:
Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole
I did. "the RIR system" does not mean "only RIPE".
spreading the blame out doesn't change much. The problem of ipv4
exhaustion has been under discussion
We can surely pack up and go home after scraping up a /4. And we can even give
it tactically to critical content delivery so people will be forced to move on
it.
As we speak the mobile industry is discussing IMSI depletion as it gears up to
connect billion(s) of new gadgets to 5G.
This is not
On 07.10.19 13:21, Job Snijders wrote:
> Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole
I did. "the RIR system" does not mean "only RIPE".
-kai
Moin,
on 07.10.19 12:56, Gert Doering wrote:
> I take a bit of offense here.
That's sad, and unintended; but that topic is totally OT here, as it is v4-only
and about 1992-20something.
-kai
Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole, not RIPE specifically.
If a /4 goes to the RIRs that would be a perspective we’d need to consider
on a global scale.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 20:19 Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Gert Doering wrote on 07/10/2019 11:56:
> > I take a bit of offense here.
Gert Doering wrote on 07/10/2019 11:56:
I take a bit of offense here. We did what we could to "protect the
newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is
not enough v4, what else could we have done?
No need to take offense - it's normal for our species to want to
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:33:33PM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> I have no doubt the RIR system will again fail to protect the newcomers,
I take a bit of offense here. We did what we could to "protect the
newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is
not
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
Also for many years, we don't actually do it. And whoever it is that
decides not to do it, is certainly part of the RIPE community. The only
reason I can see is that at least that part of the RIPE community does
not consider IPv6-only + NAT64 to be
Am 07.10.19 um 06:07 schrieb Michel Py:
>> Kai 'wusel' Siering
>> Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses
>> (10/8) does have the power to solve their
>> addressing needs with IPv6. This isn't true for newcomers that have to deal
>> with old players not
Hi all,
On 05/10/2019 15:05, Lee Howard wrote:
>> that said, we need more running code, still, which only then can
>> get into a deployment, and nobody's funding that.
>
> Do you mean CeroWRT specifically, or code in general?
>
> I was thinking about some Hackathon projects to add IPv6
> Kai 'wusel' Siering
> Rationale: an internal network needing more than 16 million IPv4 addresses
> (10/8) does have the power to solve their
> addressing needs with IPv6. This isn't true for newcomers that have to deal
> with old players not enabling v6.
I do not agree because it does not fit
> Uros Gaber wrote :
> But what other solution do you see, a brand new protocol that takes another x
> years for adoption,
> that will in far end still cause dual or better yet triple stack deployment?
No. It has to be a single-stack protocol fully backwards compatible.
Dual-stacking is the
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote :
> I don't mean to be criticising in any way, but running services on obsolete
> operating systems is a risk in itself, if the computer is connected to the
> Internet.
We are well-aware of the risks. None of the production computers have Internet
access. Most
Moin,
am 06.10.19 um 10:59 schrieb Gert Doering:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
>> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the
>> only valid option is "public unicast", spread across the RIRs as
>> recovered space. As has been
Hi Jen,
* Jen Linkova [191005 03:46]:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:41 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
>> ... the default network at RIPE Meetings is the dual-stack network, with
>> the IPv6-only (NAT64) network as a barely used extra which is "supported
>> on a best effort basis". With the effect that
"S.P.Zeidler" writes:
> Given we'll have enterprise walled gardens with v4 inside for a long time,
> that indeed will take decades. If you plan projects that span more than
> one decade, making sure it's IPv6 capable will at least save you money
> in the long run, because enterprise-only
Thus wrote Mikael Abrahamsson (swm...@swm.pp.se):
> I don't think IPv6 has failed, I just think it's going to take a long time,
> and especially the last 10% is going to take a really really long time.
> Decades.
At some point in time IPv4 code will rot, and see too little testing to
be still
Dear Michel,
On 04/10/2019 17:16, Michel Py wrote:
> 3 months ago, I turned DECNET off on my network. It was actually not even an
> IT/network decision; customer decided they were done with a product, and we
> de-commissioned the tools with DECNET. Business decision. We run OS/2 Warp,
>
Hi,
Fine, i get it: It's not only Microsoft and Cisco.
But this WG goes way beyond Eric and Veronika... so we might have someone
who can actually help already in the WG, or we (collectively) need to find
those who can make a difference.
But, imho, such list of 'gaps' is very, very useful!
Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg writes:
> Hi Alexander, All,
>
> Github is now owned by Microsoft.
> Someone from Microsoft reading this? Maybe Veronika from Microsoft and
> the UK IPv6 Council?
>
> Cisco: just saw a post from Eric Vyncke. :-))
twitter, slack, amazon, stackexchange, redhat
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> Am 05.10.19 um 22:30 schrieb Michel Py:
> > This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it.
>
> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the
> only valid option is "public
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:24:13PM +0200, Anton Rieger wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:10:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> >Uh, no. The IETF decides what it is, and if they say it's private
> >(like they did with RFC1918), then it is.
> >
> >If they say it's "reserved", it's not up for
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, 'Job Snijders' wrote:
I posit: the further an IP packet has to travel, the less likely it is
to be an IPv6 packet.
Looking at who has deployed IPv6 and how these people communicate, this is
most likely true.
IPv6 is most common today on eyeball<->CDN traffic. Looking at
100% of internet will happen
100% of all networks will not
On 10/05/2019 11:02 PM, Michel Py wrote:
> I did not start this thread, but it is time to acknowledge that talks of 100%
> IPv6 are not something that should be on the table at this time.
> Sander Steffann wrote :
> If you want a war that is your choice, but please go and fight it somewhere
> else. RIPE
> mailing lists are a place to be constructive and, as Job said, excellent to
> each other.
Read the rest of my posts. I did not start the war. I did not start this thread.
There
Hi Michael,
> Time to be nice has come, and gone. The IPv6 camp has clearly stated that
> their goal is to win the war. Battle time.
If you want a war that is your choice, but please go and fight it somewhere
else. RIPE mailing lists are a place to be constructive and, as Job said,
excellent
> Am 04.10.2019 um 08:56 schrieb Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg :
>
> Some years ago i also did a local test by removing the IPv4 address from my
> laptop to see if i could bear with a full day of work without it. I couldn't.
> After two hours i placed it back, but at the time i already had a list
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it.
> Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote :
> If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the only valid
> option is "public unicast",
I agree with unicast, but not public.
> spread across the
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
>
> > Net result : organizations that need more than 10/8 are now (and they are
> > plenty of examples) squatting un-announced DoD space such as 30/8.
>
> Maybe someone should tell them about IPv6 then.
or about the
Am 05.10.19 um 22:30 schrieb Michel Py:
> This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it.
If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the only valid
option is "public unicast", spread across the RIRs as recovered space. As has
been stated here may
Hi,
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Michel Py wrote:
Carlos Friaças wrote :
Admitting that "zealotism" is not a got thing might be a good 1st step.
I did not create the IPv4 zealots, I joined their ranks by economic necessity.
I do not like it, but I need the IPv4 ecosystem for 20 more years and I am
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:02:27PM +, Michel Py wrote:
> Do you measure what is happening on private interconnects ? MMR
> traffic ?
Yes, looking at stats at NTT (a network which basically is only private
interconnects), I see a similar pattern as we observe at AMS-IX. I'll
see what detalis
> Carlos Friaças wrote :
> Admitting that "zealotism" is not a got thing might be a good 1st step.
I did not create the IPv4 zealots, I joined their ranks by economic necessity.
I do not like it, but I need the IPv4 ecosystem for 20 more years and I am not
going to let the IPv6 zealots destroy
> Job Snijders wrote :
> I've observed IPv6 hitting a plateau (even a slight decrease!) in usage
> of IPv6 across multiple large networks measured over significant time.
I was expecting more than not even 3% IPv6 at AMSIX. I don't call it
"significant time" yet.
IMHO, it will take a few more
Marc, long time no see indeed ;-)
> Marc Blanchet wrote :
> To me IPv6 is the only viable solution.
To me IPv4 is the only viable solution until a replacement for IPv6 is found.
You know what I do for a living. Where are the US$ 2B I need to dual-stack ?
I just can't afford it.
> but the
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 03:56:18PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Up to now, I have only see an increase of the number of nodes/trafic
> over IPv6, by any metric or monitoring system I’ve seen. The increase
> rate is not as most of us would like to be, but still positive. To me,
> if we see a
... I guess this "war" is why some people want to make ipv6 as much like
ipv4 as possible? Only . vs : and hex vs pure number as the only
difference?
---
Roger Jørgensen
rog...@gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019, 21:44 Michel Py
wrote:
> Hi Job,
>
> > Job Snijders wrote :
> > If the IPv4 vs
On 5 Oct 2019, at 15:44, Michel Py wrote:
Hi Job,
Job Snijders wrote :
If the IPv4 vs IPv6 tussle is interpreted as a culture war,
It is war, but I don't think it is a matter of culture. After all, 20
years ago we almost all were in the same boat, more or less. Most of
us believed that
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 08:10:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Uh, no. The IETF decides what it is, and if they say it's private
(like they did with RFC1918), then it is.
If they say it's "reserved", it's not up for grabs (neither for the RIRs
not for any private deployment either).
"Not RIR
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 06:31:25PM +, Michel Py wrote:
> > Sander Steffann wrote :
> > I must say I have had enough of your snarky remarks. They are very
> > unproductive and do not contribute to this working group in any way.
> > Please refrain from posting unless you have something to
On 10/5/19 12:06 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
Lee Howard writes:
IPv6 deployment in your network means cutting your NAT expense in
half. More, as more sites deploy.
There's no fungable or measureable "NAT expense". NAT generally saves
money. Look at the container market for one recent example.
> Sander Steffann wrote :
> I must say I have had enough of your snarky remarks. They are very
> unproductive and do not contribute to this working group in any way. Please
> refrain from posting unless you have something to contribute please.
Then unsubscribe me. What is very unproductive is the
On 10/5/19 11:53 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
Lee Howard writes:
On 10/4/19 4:55 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
not being able to get a
static IPv6 address out of comcast, my hurricane tunnel getting blocked
by netflix, the still-huge prefix sub-distribution problem. The idea of
dynamic 2 week prefixes in
Hi,
> Op 5 okt. 2019, om 19:27 heeft Michel Py
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> r...@jack.fr.eu.org wrote :
>> What is not FUD is that 240/4 is not currently routable through my home
>> router
>
> Oh wow, you need 240/4 on your home router ? must be a pretty big home, if
> you don't have
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 05:06:57PM +, Michel Py wrote:
> > Gert Doering wrote :
> > It's not "private address space" unless designated as such.
>
> Wrong again. It's not public unless given to RIRs to allocate it.
> FUD++
Uh, no. The IETF decides what it is, and if they say it's
Well, if someone has to use to to provide some kind of service, someone
shall have the possibility to use this service
If you are doing a network for yourself, you can use whatever range from 0/0
On 10/05/2019 07:27 PM, Michel Py wrote:
>> r...@jack.fr.eu.org wrote :
>> What is not FUD is that
> r...@jack.fr.eu.org wrote :
> What is not FUD is that 240/4 is not currently routable through my home router
Oh wow, you need 240/4 on your home router ? must be a pretty big home, if you
don't have enough with 10/8
Michel.
> Dave That wrote :
> That last number is pure BS. It's not a single cost. It's that last dangling
> set of apps that can't be converted to ipv6 that's the infinite cost.
It's not only the apps, it's the tools and the entire business process that is
behind. I am not going to replace a ten
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 19:07, Michel Py
wrote:
> >>> Nick Hilliard wrote :
> >>> The cost of making 240/4 usable is to update every device on the
> >>> planet, including legacy ipv4 stacks.
>
> >> Michel Py wrote :
> >> No it is not. It costs nothing to the Internet, it only costs to
> >> those
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
