On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 22:55 +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
SNIP
I also presume you sent them a check and showed them the business case for
the upgrade? No large provider is going to upgrade anything without a
business reason.
Current clients are already paying them at them moment are
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:32:32PM -0500,
Mike Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 3 lines which said:
On the subject of ipv6, is there currently any way to multi-home
with IPv6 yet?
RFC 4177: Architectural Approaches to Multi-homing for IPv6 (five
approaches, including at least one
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
A few folks that have a deployment going are ahead of the curve, hopefully
they can keep the parts they have running and upgrade away from the 7507
that is their current solution :)
The larger EU/US ISPs that have real
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somehow, I don't think anything that Abilene does is going to fix Jordi's
routing. From where *you* are, do *you* have a path to
2001:0440:1880:1000::0020
that *doesn't go through Japan? If so, what does your path look like?
# traceroute6
Blech. :) (For comparison, here's the IPv4 traceroute:
Very interesting. From the east coast your IPv4 traffic
goes to Virginia and then to the UK. But your IPv6 traffic
goes to Atlanta, Houston, LA and across the Pacific.
Is this due to someone's misconfiguration of weights?
--Michael
I told them dudes to forklift their network is hardly productive.
IPv6 is not a forklift upgrade.
Showing, if folks can't find it themselves, that there is a business
case
that would justify a few million dollar upgrade is...
Again, it is cheaper to ease into IPv6 rather than waiting until
There are a few interesting questions here (partially rhetorical):
And also:
Should your company be preparing to operate v6 services
at all? Popular opinion is that when the automobile was
invented, all buggy manufacturers shut down. This is
not true. http://www.liveryone.net/
IPv6 is one of
Brandon Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that there will be a frantic scramble, but I don't
expect it to last long enough for an IPv4 black market to
form.
There's already a black market in IPv4. I've seen plenty of offers to
buy
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 14 21:45:56 2005 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
As ted and others have already said: Show me the customers who are
asking... so far the numbers are startlingly low, too low to justify full
builds by anyone large.
Just wait for a popular adult-content-provider offering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lothberg) writes:
Is there anyone who can talk to it using IPv6 on the Nanog list?
(Time20.Stupi.SE, 2001:0440:1880:1000::0020)
[sa:amd64] ntpq -p 2001:0440:1880:1000::0020
remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 22:55 +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
SNIP
I also presume you sent them a check and showed them the business case for
the upgrade? No large provider is going to upgrade anything without a
business reason.
Current
Hello,
Does anyone have any experience or suggestions on Cisco
Cache Log Analyzing/Reporting tools? Ive downloaded
Sawmill which isnt too bad but I would like to
evaluate a couple more. Windows and Open Source apps are
possible candidates. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
As ted and others have already said: Show me the customers who are
asking... so far the numbers are startlingly low, too low to justify full
builds by anyone large.
Just
Hello,
Does anyone have any experience or suggestions on Cisco
Cache Log Analyzing/Reporting tools? Ive downloaded
Sawmill which isnt too bad but I would like to
evaluate a couple more. Windows and Open Source apps are
possible candidates. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:13:44 +0200
Sabri Berisha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
As ted and others have already said: Show me the customers who are
asking... so far the numbers are startlingly low, too low to justify full
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 03:50:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:44:23 +0200, Jeroen Massar said:
Kick Abilene to not be so silly and get some real transits. Then again
Abiline is educational and those networks seem to have very nice (read:
overcomplex) routing
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:21:47AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:32:29AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
A few folks that have a deployment going are ahead of the curve, hopefully
they can keep the parts they have running and upgrade away from the 7507
that
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:17:51AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Marshall,
Just wait for a popular adult-content-provider offering website-access
for free via IPv6..
Why ? Are you implying that there is unlimited free IPv6 bandwidth ?
Nope.
If not, why would they do that ?
On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
tricks
that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
either.
But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support
shim6, as
shim6 is:
1)
From: John Dupuy
We are looking at getting an additional transit connection.
In the past, we have used fixedorbit.com and the like and
guesstimated our best transit choices. (Other factors
came into play as well, of course, such as price...)
Anyway, does anyone have a suggestion for
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 10:57 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
SNIP
Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above and
beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked and
real) would present a threat to ISPs?
There is one situation which is not really covered here,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end sites.
But isn't a solution for
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:11:52AM -0400, David Hubbard wrote:
From: John Dupuy
We are looking at getting an additional transit connection.
In the past, we have used fixedorbit.com and the like and
guesstimated our best transit choices. (Other factors
came into play as well, of
Should your company be preparing to operate v6 services
at all? Popular opinion is that when the automobile was
invented, all buggy manufacturers shut down. This is
not true. http://www.liveryone.net/
A buggy company founded in 1972?
What kind of comparison are you trying to make? Wait 75
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know most nanog responses seem to go off list immediately
but I'd be interested in this as well for traffic engineering.
A top AS and top prefix talkers would be really useful.
perhaps you have forgotten this nifty set of pages:
On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:27, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a
Anyway, does anyone have a suggestion for determine our next
best transit? Essentially, I am looking for techniques of:
1. Gathering our current traffic patterns and subtotalling
source/destination IP by ASN.
Flowscan will do this. Origin and path.
2. Gathering our BGP views into a
On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:48, David Hubbard wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know most nanog responses seem to go off list immediately
but I'd be interested in this as well for traffic engineering.
A top AS and top prefix talkers would be really useful.
perhaps you have forgotten this
i ping'd the group a while back about anyone who has had or
currently has any dealings with asia/pac carriers. the
three in particular i am interested in are:
- Asia Netcomm
- Telstra
- Global Crossing
any details on circuit turnup, technical issues, language
problems, etc would be very
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:50:33AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find
shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some
measurement and modelling before I made declarations about that,
You mean in some 5-10 years? When
Dear Sabri;
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:34:19 +0200
Sabri Berisha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:17:51AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Marshall,
Just wait for a popular adult-content-provider offering website-access
for free via IPv6..
Why ? Are you
***
Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall.
***-***
One thing i find promising/good: Lots of people here sent their v6
traces to the list, so it's not just a few random geeks messing with v6
as much anymore, it's there.
- jared
Hi,
Well
Independent of all this discussion we are witnessing regarding to the IPv6
deployment I'd like to write down some high-level requirements for transport
layer protocols in Internetworks (such as the global Internet).
Lets have a look at required attributes of such an ideal transport layer
i'd like to see the island of IPv4 being tunneled over a native IPv6
network... not the IPv4 ntworks turned off. For the good folks
who NAT today, there should be a minor change @ the NAT
--bill
fre, 14,.10.2005 kl. 10.03 -0500, skrev John Dupuy:
We are looking at getting an additional transit connection.
In the past, we have used fixedorbit.com and the like and guesstimated
our best transit choices. (Other factors came into play as well, of course,
such as price...)
Anyway,
On Oct 14, 10:03am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: Choosing new transit: software help?
A remarkably large list of netflow tools is maintained at:
http://www.switch.ch/tf-tant/floma/software.html
It distinguishes between free and commercial software.
(Note to sales-droids on the list:
Thus spake Mike Leber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Michael Greb wrote:
I can't speak for the others but he.net doesn't seem to interested in
customers making use of their dual stack network. We looked into
getting IPv6 space from them to go with our IPv4 assignments for a
couple of
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 15 Oct, 2005
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:21:20 EDT, Jared Mauch said:
Mine does not:
punk:~/Desktop traceroute6 2001:0440:1880:1000::0020
traceroute to 2001:0440:1880:1000::0020 (2001:440:1880:1000::20) from
2001:418:3f4:0:20e:a6ff:febf:a5ca, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
1 2001:418:3f4::1
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:45:14 CDT, Sam Hayes Merritt, III said:
A buggy company founded in 1972?
What kind of comparison are you trying to make? Wait 75 years
after your business is gone and then start anew?
No, they were 25 years *ahead* of everybody else. Remember the .com bubble,
where
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:15:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. :) That's the first one I've seen that a sprintv6.net address
isn't at
hop number 3 or so (indicating that the person is basically directly
connected to
sprintv6.net) and also doesn't take a loop through
Joe (or anyone else),
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end
sites.
Since shim6
Thus spake Sean Figgins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP,
Will start replacing XP on new consumer-grade computers.
Corporations will take another 2-4 years to switch, and other
people might have
Thus spake Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Randy Bush wrote:
and don't you just love the suggestions of natting v6?
No, but I would like to see consumer routers support rfc3068
(automatic 6to4 tunneling) by default when there is no native IPv6
access service.
If we could convince manufacturers
BTW, as I read it, SHIM6 requires not only modification to ALL nodes at the
site,
but, modification to ALL nodes to which the node needs reliable
connectivity.
In other words, SHIM6 is not fully useful until it is fully ubiquitous in
virtually
all IPv6 stacks.
Owen
--On October 14, 2005
On 14-Oct-2005, at 14:48, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-Oct-2005, at 15:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
BTW, as I read it, SHIM6 requires not only modification to ALL
nodes at the
site,
but, modification to ALL nodes to which the node needs reliable
connectivity.
For one host with multiple,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:19:27PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my impression incorrect?
There is no shortage of rough corners to file
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:27:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the kicker here is that the applications then need some
serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally routed. Seperating topology
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:33:51PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:39:58 +0200, Daniel Roesen said:
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally routed. Seperating topology from identification.
Something I didn't see discussed yet is that shim6 sites would need to
get a globally unique, provider
Hi Bill,
That's happing already in a few big networks. I've 5.000 sites in a single
network moving to do that ASAP.
Regards,
Jordi
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:38:46 +
Para: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu
Asunto: IPv6 - next?
Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:27:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the kicker here is that the applications then need some
serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
Actually, doing multihoming and getting PI space are orthogonal in
shim6 last I knew. That is, you could get address space from your N
providers and have one of the providers, say Provider X, to be the
ULID for the end points.
Seems like it might be a good time to update everyone on
the IAB IPv6 Multi-homing BOF we're holding Monday
afternoon at NANOG. My very draft introduction slides are
on http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/talks/NANOG35/multihoming.
Dave
pgpNenCFArWcU.pgp
NANOG 35 Draft Agenda
October 23-25, 2005
Los Angeles
Sunday Tutorials
9:00 - 4:30 p.m. ARIN/NANOG Tutorial: Getting Started With IPv6
Jordi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
(shouldn't that be [EMAIL PROTECTED] now?)
If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else
is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented
in any near term timeframe and it will take a very long time for
At 11:56 PM 13/10/2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that there will be a frantic scramble, but I don't
expect it to last long enough for an IPv4 black market to
form.
There's already a black market in IPv4. I've seen plenty of offers to
buy
I understand that since secondary.com operations were picked up by
UltraDNS, there's been a signifigant brain drain within UDNS
operations, and from what I've heard, there isn't a lot of smarts
left there.
This anecdotal theory is borne out by empirical evidence- they seem
unable to come
Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
Actually, doing multihoming and getting PI space are orthogonal in
shim6 last I knew. That is, you could get address space from your N
providers and have one of the providers, say Provider X, to be the
ULID for
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:56:27PM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
...
Our jobs, as network designers and operators will be make it seemless to
the consumer without forcing them to shell out a thousand or more dollars
on new Windows software, and the hardware that will be required to run it
on.
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a few interesting questions here (partially rhetorical):
And also:
Should your company be preparing to operate v6 services
at all? Popular opinion is that when the automobile was
invented, all buggy manufacturers shut down. This is
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:28:19AM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
...
While I do not necessarily disagree with this point of view (as I work
for a company who uses allocated space in such a manner), others may
argue that addresses that are assigned through the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
RFC 3068 also has another problem -- not enough relays, or at least not enough
in logical locations. From my home in Texas, a traceroute shows the
topologically closest instance of 192.88.99.1 to be in France.
Well, anycast isn't necessarily the
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
(shouldn't that be [EMAIL PROTECTED] now?)
If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else
is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented
in any near term timeframe and
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:06:03PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
That said, even such a distant gateway would be fine for v6 *eyeballs* if
organizations would voluntarily set up 6to4 outbound relays for their own v6
networks. It's as simple as setting up a route to 2002::/16 at the border
with
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
It is understandable that you charge extra for a v6-enabled port due to your
need to fund upgraded hardware. However, that doesn't explain why you don't
deliver v4 and v6 both over the same higher-priced port.
We would be happy to do this for
I'd be very interested in what folks here think of this:
http://news.com.com/Time+for+a+real+Internet+highway/2010-1028_3-5894664.html?tag=carsl
Thanks,
--Michael
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Michael Painter wrote:
I'd be very interested in what folks here think of this:
http://news.com.com/Time+for+a+real+Internet+highway/2010-1028_3-5894664.html?tag=carsl
I think it's a news.com.com.com URL, and therefore most likely not
very worth opening, much less
- Original Message -
From: Matt Ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michael Painter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: NANGO nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Time for a real Internet highway (?)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Michael Painter wrote:
I'd be very interested in
/* LET THE FLAMES BEGIN */
No fatalities, minor damage. Work and play for some Internet users was
interrupted or disrupted. A short inconvenience, but then normal life
resumed.
I wonder what the author would have said if major medical facilities would
have had casualties because of the
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I told them dudes to forklift their network is hardly productive.
IPv6 is not a forklift upgrade.
agreed, it's a measured engineered decision hopefully. backed by financial
and prudent engineering decisions. that wasn't the tone of the orignial
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 10:57 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
SNIP
Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above and
beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked and
real) would present a threat to ISPs?
There is
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:50:33AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find
shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some
measurement and modelling before I made declarations about
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:45:33PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
Maybe to start -- but again, what kind of 6to4 traffic level are we
expecting yet?
Peak or average? Think twice before answering. :-)
I'm told there are 6to4 relays seeing in excess of 100mbps. Not bursts.
Can you imagine trying
On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
tricks
that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
either.
But one won't need to upgrade a Tier
Once upon a time, Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
agreed, it's a measured engineered decision hopefully. backed by financial
and prudent engineering decisions. that wasn't the tone of the orignial
comment though, which was: Yea, I told them to just do it which is
tantamount to
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:54:19PM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
It is understandable that you charge extra for a v6-enabled port due to
your
need to fund upgraded hardware. However, that doesn't explain why you
don't
deliver v4 and v6 both
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
tricks
that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
agreed, it's a measured engineered decision hopefully. backed by financial
and prudent engineering decisions. that wasn't the tone of the orignial
comment though, which was: Yea, I
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:45AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
proven,
unsubscribe
On Oct 14, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
designing a solution
which misses the stated requirements of many folks actually operating
networks
So far it's missing some of the stated requirements (reasons for
multihoming) listed in the charter... well I was going to cut-n-paste
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:21:58PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
For some equipment, it still works out to forklift your network.
For example, our current dialup gear doesn't support IPv6 (and AFAIK
no upgrades are available or planned to add it).
How does that hinder your backbone, leased line
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, David Conrad wrote:
Joe (or anyone else),
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a
Once upon a time, Daniel Roesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:21:58PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
For some equipment, it still works out to forklift your network.
For example, our current dialup gear doesn't support IPv6 (and AFAIK
no upgrades are available or planned to
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:39:58 +0200, Daniel Roesen said:
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally routed. Seperating topology from identification.
Something I didn't see discussed yet is that shim6 sites
Christopher,
On Oct 14, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
You know, if you describe it that way too many times, people who are
only paying half-attention are going to say IPv6 has something
almost
like NAT, only different.
you know... shim6 could make 'source address'
But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETF
there is no hope in
Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:45:33PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
Maybe to start -- but again, what kind of 6to4 traffic level are we
expecting yet?
Peak or average? Think twice before answering. :-)
I'm told there are 6to4 relays seeing in excess of 100mbps. Not
92 matches
Mail list logo
