Marco d'Itri's whois client does quite a lot of what you want,
including automatically following an rwhois referral when it finds one
Of course not much can be done when the rwhois server to which you're
redirected just doesn't respond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11:33:29 ~ $ telnet rwhois.level3.net
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Content providers and other large business, without who's funds the Internet
would fail, have a right not to be tied to a single provider. And while I
The shimming model is a way to solve
Howard == Howard C Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Howard I'm assisting in trying to deal with a group of
Howard flooders/trolls. One remailer directs complaints to
Howard www.usenetabuse.com. Does anyone know if this is a
Howard legitimate anonymizer abuse desk, or phishing for
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:32:58AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the
world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
IPv6 solved the addressing
On 10-Sep-2005, at 21:42, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination
of unworthy above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.]
And this is why v6 has failed and will continue to fail.
love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I could run a
big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
Bring it on... Why are you so afraid?
---
Alan Spicer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
On 9/11/05, Alan Spicer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I could run a
big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
Instead, you have small end sites getting /48s from tunnel providers,
and then running maybe two or three hosts on
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
We disagree. And your hyperbole doesn't come close
randy, all,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:11:50AM +0700, Randy Bush wrote:
Re: From: Todd Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but, the geolocation stuff is cool. could it have told us, in
an operationally useful/timely manner, that att had moved from
new jersey to spain the other day?
yes, within
Hi,
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one explanation for such a large difference (8.5x) between these two
numbers,
On 11-sep-2005, at 14:40, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
And seriously, does the main assumption of v6, that every single
toaster out there is going to become a v6 host, really not scare
anyone?
Nope. I guess people have other things that scare them... See subject.
Giving IP connectivity to
On Sep 11, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one explanation for such a large
I don't think the point is that every thing could be connected to the
Internet but that the worry that 2 things can't be connected and ISP's get
to charge stupid fees for a static IP and that some countries other than the
US are severely starved for IP addresses. The reason IPv6 adoption is
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS)
will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's technology.
SUP720-3BXL says 1M (500K v6) now, doesn't seem too much of a stretch
to 4M over many years
On 11-sep-2005, at 19:06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
Unknown. Somewhat less than the number of hosts on the Internet,
somewhat more than one. My bet is closer to the latter than the
former.
Well, if you don't know the number of multihomers
On 11-sep-2005, at 20:26, Alan Spicer wrote:
some countries other than the US are severely starved for IP
addresses.
Please point me to the RIR policies that say that organizations in
the US that don't have address space get it, while the same request
from a non-US organization is
On 11-sep-2005, at 20:34, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS)
will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
Could be 4.1 or even 4.2. I'm assuming those
working on 4byte ASs know, if it's more we'll have
to migrate again which would be silly so soon
So about 4M it must be.
We know that 125k
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 9/11/05, Alan Spicer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
love IPv6 more than you guys would ever give to a sole. Shoot I could run a
big ISP on a single 48. God bless America.
Instead, you have small end sites getting /48s from tunnel
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:32:58AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the
world being multihomed, it just
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:51:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't scare us... ever try nmaping a /48?
one host at a time? from a single point? nope - once v6 becomes common
enough someone will just write a nice little distributed botnet to
propagate around it.
who wants nmap when all you need
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:25:30AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't scare us... ever try nmaping a /48?
one host at a time? from a single point? nope - once v6 becomes common
enough someone will just write a nice
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Security is something that really must be taken into account now,
before it starts to become a problem
er,, not to be a naif, but what do you mean by security
in this context?
Well, something like coding the firmware
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't scare us... ever try nmaping a /48?
one host at a time? from a single point? nope - once v6 becomes common
enough someone will just write a nice little distributed botnet to
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 07:15:59AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Security is something that really must be taken into account now,
before it starts to become a problem
er,, not to be a naif, but what do you mean
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, not security per se, more authentication...
Authentication, access control, basic remote and local vulnerabltiies,
viruses .. the works
those things are networkable now... as are these:
light switches,
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Drop me a line when your botnet finishes scanning 3FFE:::/16 and moves
on to 2001:::
It is a v6 botnet - so a correspondingly larger number of infected
hosts, and larger botnet size
If it is your argument that scanning just won't scale
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 07:32:36 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
On 12/09/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Drop me a line when your botnet finishes scanning 3FFE:::/16 and moves
on to 2001:::
It is a v6 botnet - so a correspondingly larger number of infected
hosts, and
On 12/09/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A /48 is 80 bits of address. 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 addresses.
Even at a million packets/second (which even Joe Sixpack will quite likely
notice until such time as the Linksys router you get at Walmart does 1M pps),
that's
Once you find a host on a /48 jump to the next one I guess. Or make
some guess on what IP addressing scheme is being followed and which
subnets of that /48 are being used [assuming that an end site like a
cellphone carrier decides to give v6 IPs to all its phone users] ...
scan from within
On 12/09/05, Dave Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, with some incredible luck, you could find all those devices while
you're scanning - just seems like some are crying that the sky is falling
already.
Like I said -
I was just assuming that people who promote v6 as the best thing
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:29:03 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
With all due respect (!) to the v6 promotion councils out there, I
doubt, for the same reasons you do, that there'll ever be enough v6
capable hosts out there, toasters or not, to fill even a single /48,
for a long time .. but
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:26:20 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Given that ther's not 2**80 atoms on the planet, yes, that *would* be an =
ouch.
D'oh!. There are 2**80 atoms. Somebody misremembered Avogadro's number. ;)
pgpcnncRYjupA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 12/09/05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that you're assuming that your access network will be
multi-gigabit in order to support millions of hosts trying to scan each of
your subnets simultaneously in order to finish in time before celebrating a
couple of
While I agree that all kind of consumer devices will be most probably the
first application of IPv6 at every home, office, etc., the BIG usage will
come from sensors of all kinds. Probably will count by thousands at every
place.
I'm sure that we will never fill in the 64 bits address space of
The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated as
100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts
with have native support or use other transition mechanism such as
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
cause each end node knows about the upstream network 'problems' so well?
giving them full routes too are we? ( I don't want to fight this
arguement here, I'm just making a rhetorical question, one I hope there
will be a presentation this
I think is just a question of using the correct arguments which every target
group ;-) Those that don't start supporting IPv6 are already running out of
some customers. It's up to them !
Regards,
Jordi
De: George William Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Fri,
I don't think is failing ... On the other way around: looking at the
adoption perspectives and compared with other technologies, transition
stages, and so on, is going much faster than expected ...
Regards,
Jordi
De: Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/09/05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yes, having more addresses means also that every device can turn on
end-to-end security, which is already an improvement versus today Internet
with IPv4+NAT.
Jordi, as I told you at APNIC 20, end to end security and host based
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
the estimated number of hosts using 6to4 on Windows hosts was calculated as
100.000.000 (extrapolated from measurements). This is not including hosts
that seems
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], JORDI PALET MARTINEZ w
rites:
I don't think is failing ... On the other way around: looking at the
adoption perspectives and compared with other technologies, transition
stages, and so on, is going much faster than expected ...
About 4 years ago, I predicted that
I recall last month in our web servers was something like 8% with IPv6
(average), but in my opinion most of the IPv6 traffic is peer-to-peer so not
easy to measure at web servers (or servers in general).
Regards,
Jordi
De: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google
The last figure that I remember, very impressive, was in April 2004, when
the estimated number of hosts using
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
An obvious corollary to this is that ISPs should be planning their v6
offerings now, too. This means routers, databases, operation support
systems, CPE for cable and DSL ISPs, etc. Those that don't are likely
to find themselves bypassed.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I recall last month in our web servers was something like 8% with IPv6
(average), but in my opinion most of the IPv6 traffic is peer-to-peer so not
8% seems high to me as well, I don't think I've ever seen my v6 traffic
over 1% honestly :( Why
48 matches
Mail list logo
