Re: IPv6 Training?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Rubenstein writes: Does anyone know of any good IPv6 training resources (classroom, or self-guided)? If your router vendor supports IPv6 (surprisingly, many do!): Too bad the IPv6 support on the low-end Ciscos is mostly broken in many ways (does not w

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

[Update to earlier stats: The current v4 prefix/AS ratio is 8.7. However, there are ~11k ASes only announcing a single v4 route, so that means the other ~14k ASes are at a v4 ratio of 14.3. In contrast, the current v6 ratio is 1.1 and the deaggregate rate is 1.2%.] This is more than a little

Re: IPv6 Advertisements

Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So I expect people who are in your position to start requesting blocks larger than /32 or /48 in order to be able to deaggregate, or even request multiple independent PI blocks. It will be interesting to see what this means for the numbe

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

must be the weekend, i'm posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > i wish that the community had the means to do revenue sharing with such > > folks. carrying someone else's TE routes is a global cost for a point > > benefit. > > There are lessons to be learned from the CO2 emissions trade industry. I >

Re: ULA BoF

> Although ISPs tend to let packets with RFC 1918 source addresses slip > out from time to time, ... maybe some isp's, or even most isp's in some parts of the world, but not isp's in general. we see a continuous barrage of rfc1918-sourced queries at f-root, along with a continuous blast of rfc

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

Paul Vixie wrote: i wish that the community had the means to do revenue sharing with such folks. carrying someone else's TE routes is a global cost for a point benefit. There are lessons to be learned from the CO2 emissions trade industry. I don't think it's really any different since the

Re: NAT Multihoming (was:Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)

> Cisco has a whitepaper entitled "Enabling Enterprise Multihoming with Cisco > IOS NAT" that addresses this. See > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk361/technologies_white_paper09186a0080091c8a.shtml > as well as RFC2260. see also . > There are in

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

> > how much of the v4 prefix count is de-aggregation for te or by TWits? > > why won't they do this in v6? > > you mean like: > > AS4755 > AS4134 > AS18566 > AS4323 > AS9498 > AS6478 > AS11492 > AS22773 > AS8151 > AS19262 > AS6197 > > I'm sure they

Re: IPv6 Advertisements

On 2-jun-2007, at 17:25, Ross Vandegrift wrote: Am I under some misconceptions about IPv6 routing policies here? There are no IPv6 routing policies. Everyone gets to decide which prefixes to accept and which to reject on their own. However, unlike IPv4, there are currently pretty much onl

Re: IPv6 Advertisements

On 1-jun-2007, at 14:58, Chris L. Morrow wrote: I believe that a separate /48 per site is better regardless of whether or not the company has contracted with a single ISP for all sites, or not. As far as I am concerned if there is a separate access circuit, then it is a site and it deserves

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

Kradorex Xeron wrote: > On Saturday 02 June 2007 01:09, Chris L. Morrow wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Randy Bush wrote: > how much of the v4 prefix count is de-aggregation for te or by TWits? > why won't they do this in v6? wee, lookie! redistribute connected >>> whee! lookie! minds

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

On Saturday 02 June 2007 01:09, Chris L. Morrow wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> how much of the v4 prefix count is de-aggregation for te or by TWits? > > >> why won't they do this in v6? > > > > > > wee, lookie! redistribute connected > > > > whee! lookie! minds disconnecte