ARIN thanks those community members who participated in the recent
ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey. kc claffy presented an analysis of
the survey results earlier this week during ARIN XXI in Denver, Co. You
will find the link to this presentation on ARIN's IPv6 wiki at:
www.getipv6.net
Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will
give/sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Are there any EU ISPs doing IPv6 BGP peering/freebie transit-ish via
tunnels?
I'm trying to do some testing
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Adam Armstrong wrote:
Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will
give/sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Are there any EU ISPs doing IPv6 BGP peering/freebie
ARIN wishes to thank the 300+ people who completed the IPv6 survey.
CAIDA will analyze the results and present them on 7 April during the
ARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting in Denver. The results will be posted on
the ARIN website in the IPv6 Information Center and on the IPv6 wiki
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:44:14PM -0400, Joel Snyder wrote:
We have a UUnet link and a secondary provider. The secondary provider
has no IPv6 facilities. UUnet (er, Verizon Business) has IPv6 clue, but
there is an impenetrable wall between the customer and the clue which
assures
Hello. I looked through the recent archives and didn't see this
question addressed, so please excuse me if it has been beaten to death
or is considered off-topic.
We have a UUnet link and a secondary provider. The secondary provider
has no IPv6 facilities. UUnet (er, Verizon Business
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Joel Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for
customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/sell
tunnels to other ISPs?
Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven
On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/
sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I'd
happening. If your
use is really small, we've given some free tunnels as customers to a
few ISPs, but I don't know if the level of support I'm offering is
really what you're looking for either.
I can vouch that Sprint is still offering IPv6 with BGP over tunnels.
I'm currently announcing my /48
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Kevin Day wrote:
On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/
sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Experimentation
email to contact us, if you still have questions
about things, that is why that page is there, clearly people are scared
by it and don't dare to ask...
As you might guess, our IPv6 traffic load is estimated to be between
zero and unmeasurably small, but we'd still like to have it hover
above
ISPs here in New Zealand, sponsored by InternetNZ.
One wonders if there is any organization in the USA that
might sponsor similar giveaways to ISPs. Just how much importance
does the Federal government attach to IPv6 transition?
Has anyone talked to their Congressional reps about tax
relief
Nathan Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
From what I've seen, that's the best open source CPE solution, and
doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything
else).
That would be a huge benefit
I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects
associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company
that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for
services rendered (e.g. via Medicare).
Over the past 5 years
Patrick/NANOG, see list of sites below to get information on IPV6
transitions. When you go to www.cio.gov you can type in ipv6 in the
search bar to get more information. When the USG migrates to IPv6
those agencies working with them will have to migrate or take one of
the approaches
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects
associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company
that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for
services rendered (e.g. via
Randy Bush wrote:
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you
From: Jerry Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:06:24 -0400
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick/NANOG, see list of sites below to get information on IPV6
transitions. When you go to www.cio.gov you can type in ipv6 in the
search bar to get more information. When the USG
Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.
enterprise
native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's lightning talk)
i am not unhappy with ms's preso except that enterprise keeps whining
about 1918 conflicts
and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more likely deployment
to stick in their network.
The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs
which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and
Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which describe
what these things do so that you can understand how
On 17-Mar-2008, at 06:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a
As a reminder to those of you that have not participated in the IPv6 survey.
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with
the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is
conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Abley wrote:
| I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the
| record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware.
Can attest to that. I have picked up Nathan's handywork and used it on
other hardware. some work is
understand the capacity issues before buying a
little embedded box to stick in their network.
The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs
which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and
Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which
-with bundle, that means you can plug
it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending
the next 3 years engineering a solution that the various parts of the
business agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to
even think about IPv6, let alone
their engineers time to
even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic.
Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
From what I've seen, that's the best open source CPE solution, and
doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about
I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well.
randy
Randy Bush wrote:
I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think it will scale well?
their engineers
time to
even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word:
pragmatic.
Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
From what I've seen, that's the best open source CPE solution, and
doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything
else
Hi,
I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here
No, and no. Shouldn't be a surprise. (all is the dealbreaker, certain
agencies are on the ball, but most are barely experimenting).
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Glen Kent wrote:
:
:Hi,
:
:I was just reading
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
:some time back
On 15/03/2008, at 7:19 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
I have another related question:
Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances
My understanding of the mandate is that they (the Department and Agencies)
demonstrate passing IPv6 traffic on their backbone from one system out to their
backbone and back to another system.
A number of agencies, if I remember the number of about 30 have IPv6
allocations. IRS has
: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49
To: Jamie Bowden
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6
I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living
that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or
faster than IPv4, doing
so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is
lacking.
What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which
I'm told have
Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R would like to recall the message, cost of dual-stack vs
cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?].
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding
IPv6 connectivity was an option
You need the January 11 2008 firmware (or newer) to do IPv6.
6to4 works fine but there is a bug with NAT-PT at present.
If you Google
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in Australia
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells
consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature
that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you
ANOTHER CPE to
natively at home. But I'm not a typical customer.
But really, we need to start seeing some CPE, even in beta form, so we
can start working through how a transition to IPv6 might work.
(eg. customer local networks, SIP for VOIP, stateful firewalls (given
the anti-NAT-brigade have made it the only
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but
it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically
turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this
Mark Newton wrote:
Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck.
I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out
of the box.
Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6.
Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
Hi MMC,
You might want to contribute
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario. The
on beind on the bleeding
edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future
customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?
You are mixing stages of adoption. The Internet will progress as
follows:
1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
money off
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
money off IPv4. We're already well into this state.
2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
other transition mechanisms in place.
Who has the other
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of
deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The
core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere,
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. The US
Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. The
only
.
This is why any ISP that has not moved their core network
over to MPLS, really needs to take a serious look at doing
so now. If you do this then you only really need to support
IPv6 on your edge routers (MPLS PE) which are used to connect
IPv6 customers. Those PEs will use 6PE to provide native IPv6
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be
running IPv4 in 20
years. A two decade transition period just does not fit
this industry's
history.
To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is
actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have
shown). There are lots of bits
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote:
What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in
the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6.
Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to
deploy
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and
Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is
using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport
service
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
IPv6.
There are already
on which will match up
with the OMB [unfunded] mandate to be IPv6 compatible by this june.
As for the SOHO, not sure if anything other the next chip revision and
firmware are needed. Besides, will they be NAT boxen with a dozen
application layer gateway helpers like today? Or will they be actual
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
IPv6
Randy,
actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do
not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.
I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and
since that content
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google
is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google
serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote:
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is
still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is
accessible via IPv6? I might suggest
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We
tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My
colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices
they have
The IPv6 support on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's
not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices.
But
it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan
to
tunnel to.
Pete
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired.
That workaround does not work on the models with the
-Original Message-
From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote
I have an 877m (no wireless):
Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix.
All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just
peachy.
c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin
(Caveat: I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make
the LNS do what I want
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Regards,
-drc
David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Looked at the manual
From: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean
Joel:
Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if
the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay? To be clear,
even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support? Standing from a distance,
I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the CMTS has
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc
On 12-Mar-2008, at 16:06, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he
On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE
Yes, there are many. Take a look at www.ipv6-to-standard.org
Regards,
Jordi
De: Frank Bulk - iNAME [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0500
Para: nanog@merit.edu
Asunto: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially
IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Frank,
Juniper Networks Does support IPv6 in J-Series Routers and SSG Firewalls:
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/j_series_services_routers/
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/ex_series/index.html
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/firewall_slash_ipsec_vpn
4:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do
price of those features. Then
offset that with the decrease in silicon size when you add both together
with smaller size lines and transistors on the chips, I would project
SOHO prices of 250 - 350 $ US to start with for v4 v6 and dropping
from there.
OpenWRT which actually supports IPv6
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically
that natively support IPv6,
pointing to
Asia specifically.
Well, of *course* you're more likely to find such SOHO routers in
markets where
a SOHO router owner might actually be able to use the feature. But
in most
parts of the US, IPv6 support in a SOHO router is right up there
with GOSIP
I must be blind, but I don't recognize any brands there that support IPv6
(besides the Apple Airport). I see the Linksys WRT54G, but I don't know
where they find the validation for IPv6 support, unless they mean DD-WRT.
Based on all the responses I received on and off list, it appears
Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too:
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with
the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is
conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use
of IPv6 throughout the ARIN Region. For a complete list of countries go
to: http
On 4-Feb-2008, at 00:19, Scott Morris wrote:
You mean do you have to express it in hex?
There are two related things here: (a) the ability to represent a 32-
bit word in an IPv6 address in the form of a dotted-quad, and (b) the
legitimacy of an IPv6 address of the form ::A.B.C.D, where
With the official deployment of IPv6 addresses for the
root servers, F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET IPv6 address changed.
The old address, 2001:500::1035, is no longer valid and
will be turn off at some point. The new address is
2001:500:2f::f
in the most recent architecture, rfc 4291, that was deprecated. The
exact statement is
2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address
The IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address was defined to assist in the IPv6
transition. The format of the IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address is as
follows
Hi all:
With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address space?
say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native IPv6
address space?
Just wondering,
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:10 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space
Hi all:
With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address
space?
say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native
IPv6 address
On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote:
I took a DMOZ[1] dump
What's a DMOZ dump?
33.4% of all services that advertised IPv6 failed to deliver or in
other words the IPv6 failure rate is ten times the NS failure rate.
failing to deliver is not necessarily a failure condition, in my
. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global
# community of volunteer editors.
A DMOZ dump is the complete data set including directory structure, links and
descriptions. I've use this source because other lists are either too small or
contain a lot of spam.
IPv6 failure rates of 4.3% (TLD) and 6.1
some form of IPv6 brokenness, so that those of
us who would actually like to provide our information resources over
both IPv4 and IPv6 can get to work on fixing it.
I personally am concerned that there are some islands of poor v6
connectivity out there that are having problems reaching v6
On Feb 2, 2008 6:24 PM, Thomas Kühne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another factor is that with IPv4, you need to be pragmatic, because if
you don't, you have no connectivity. With IPv6, you can impose
arbitrary restrictions as much as you want, because IPv4 makes sure
there is always fallback
implementation.
Thanks all
- Original Message
From: Scott Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]; snort bsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January, 2008 12:36:55 PM
Subject: RE: IPv6 questions
And unless you are on only
snort bsd wrote:
Never mind
it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this?
I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put the VLAN number in the
link-local address.
Thus this must be an (odd) choice made by some implementation. Perhaps
the implementation somehow requires that all the link
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik
Nordmark
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:44 PM
To: snort bsd
Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp
Subject: Re: IPv6 questions
snort bsd wrote:
Never mind
it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this?
I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put
Never mind
it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this?
Thanks all
Dave
- Original Message
From: snort bsd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 28 January, 2008 3:05:59 PM
Subject: IPv6 questions
Hi All:
With link-local IPv6
1 - 100 of 2069 matches
Mail list logo
