In a "safe" place :)
For access we need a signed release form. Can we send you the form?
>
>
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 23:06 CEST]:
> > The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps
>
> Where are those hidden?
>
>
> -- Niels.
>
Multicast won't become pervasive until there are
applications that use it (as has been pointed out in this
thread), and those applications won't be widely-used until
there is some momentum with high-speed connectivity (ie >
1Mbps and probably more like 10+Mb/s).
Many multicast applications (prim
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:16:38 -0700 David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Given the amount of time and resource we've spent on multicast,
> the question one might ask is "why hasn't multicast succeeded"?
> My guess is that it is because the demand from any of the
> potential users o
> The Cisco GSR (12,0xx) just got native support for IPv6 (12.0.21ST1)
> and its being rolled out across Abilene (Internet2). I'm at one of
Uhm, I was under the impression that IOS support had been there for a while
GSRs only could do IPv6 processor switched ,and only 124xx could do it on
th
Hi
> start run cmd ipv6install
>
> How hard is that?
that'll give me a 6to4, if not with a local address if nd is working, then
to either 6bone or microsoft (it sends out proto 41 packets to 2 hosts on
the net).
I want simple native static v6 address. FreeBSD was quick 'n easy.
> Since you br
an example of a on-demand reliable multicast transport application that
you can deploy is:
http://www.digital-fountain.com/technology/index.htm
in part it employs them mechanism you describe.
joelja
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications;
> on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not
> settle for "the movie starts every 15 minutes" when they've been used
> to live VOD with unicast. The only s
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:01:35AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS?
> Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS.
>
> A thing like this:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M
> program image running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode.
There's a
> big difference there.
I am glad at least one other person knows the difference ;)
(And probably anyone who did read the docs knows
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:42:59PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > So, what is the problem?
>
> You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are
> on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic
> on your network, and billed your client once.
Do source based
Thus spake "Matthew S. Hallacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me,
> using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change
> what it is.
cmd.exe is a program which interprets MS-DOS commands. That doesn't mean it's
DOS.
> >
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:33:51PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
> One of your clients is a mcast sender. You bill him/her for the traffic
> on their port.
>
> Five of your clients are mcast receivers. You bill them for the traffic
> on their respective ports.
>
> Worst(best
At 07:27 PM 7/9/2002 -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
>Pardon me:
>
>Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
>
>C:\>command /?
>Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter.
>Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me,
>using the 'user friendly' name of 'Com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy
> Sent: July 9, 2002 8:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [OT] Re: Readiness for IPV6
>
>
> Pardon me:
>
> Microsoft Windows XP [V
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:01:35AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS?
> Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS.
>
> A thing like this:
> 8<-
> Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
> (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
>
Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:54PM -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote:
> > start run cmd ipv6install
>
> That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact
> that actually
> adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine.
Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' a
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:54PM -0700, Christian Nielsen wrote:
> start run cmd ipv6install
That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact that actually
adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine.
> Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include
>
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >
> > FUD. What problem with billing models ? If you are an ISP, you are selling
> > bandwidth. If another receiver joins the content , you get another piece of
> > egress ba
Bill Manning wrote:
> > quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from
> > ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4.
Check
http://www.sixxs.net/presentation/ipv6-ripe42_files/frame.htm
or HTML:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-i
pv6-ip
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:51:08AM -0700, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> FUD. What problem with billing models ? If you are an ISP, you are selling
> bandwidth. If another receiver joins the content , you get another piece of
> egress bandwidth filled up which hopefully is being paid for. If you nee
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 23:06 CEST]:
> The test v6 enabled root servers see ~40-120qps
Where are those hidden?
-- Niels.
> Hi
>
>
> quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from
> ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4.
>
> i.e. if you take the average amount of data sent/received per node,
> whether per protocol or per OS, how much of it is able to use V6 currently?
>
> i still find s
>quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from
>ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4.
here's traffic stats taken at NSPIXP6 (an IPv6 in Tokyo).
http://www.wide.ad.jp/nspixp6/traffic.html
still low, but there are a lot of spikes.
itojun
David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's my $0.02 on the whole multicast thing. We've been at this
> for a number of years now, and robust, ubiquitous multicast
> on the internet is really nowhere in sight.
1. The problems that multicast solves are also solved by the favorite
solutio
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:32:02PM +0200, fingers wrote:
>
> > i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for
> > manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the
> > amount of support for it is still s
I guess I'll toss in my two cents here. I see this all as a weird
kind of catch-22 on how multicast would ever become viable.
To get multicast going, people have to convince their ISPs that
multicast is a good idea. Now, the large businesses that provide the
content have done
>> the IETF's efforts have been extremely fruitful.
That is good to hear.
Dave
on 7/9/2002 11:49 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> I think a bigger issue is that multicast is only truly compelling for
> high-bandwidth applications, and there's just not a critical mass of
> users with enough bandwidth to justify deployment today.
Multimedia is the common example but I actually f
ient applications need to grow to add these and
> >> other discussed features and functions to help the content providers.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: T
Thus spake "Jeff Aitken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:49:11AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications;
> > on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not
> > settle for "the movie starts every 15
Thus spake "David Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here's my $0.02 on the whole multicast thing. We've been at this
> for a number of years now, and robust, ubiquitous multicast
> on the internet is really nowhere in sight. Kind of sounds like
> QoS, and maybe there's a lesson there (20 years of rese
Chris Parker wrote:
> It may be a bit higher, but the number who access multicast content
> is decidedly tiny. More content would probably push it higher, as
> much fun as it is watching the ISS live on Nasa TV, it does get a
> bit dry. :)
I think this is a case of "if you build it, they will
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:49:11AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications;
> on-demand content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not
> settle for "the movie starts every 15 minutes"
Just for the sake of argument I'll poin
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 01:32:42PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
> These are two seperate issues. One is, should you base your hardware choice
> on V6 support? The other is, will there be a mass rollout of v6 in the
> 2004-2005 time frame?
If you are selecting a new core router today, I w
>
> There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive
> content?
>
> Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their
> billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given
> moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other thing
These are two seperate issues. One is, should you base your hardware choice
on V6 support? The other is, will there be a mass rollout of v6 in the
2004-2005 time frame?
The first issue is specific to your network, but I suspect it's a low
priority for most. As far as a mass rollout of v6 - I'm
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:32:02PM +0200, fingers wrote:
> i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for
> manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the
> amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or
> from the application
>> Even worse, multicast is truly only suitable for live applications; on-demand
>> content can't be realistically mcasted, and users will not settle for "the movie
>> starts every 15 minutes" when they've been used to live VOD with unicast. The
>> only saving grace may be things like TiVo, wher
and
>> other discussed features and functions to help the content providers.
>>
>> David
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:55 AM
>> To: David Sinn
>> Cc: [EMA
Thus spake "David Sinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive
> content?
No, it's a "chicken and egg" problem :)
> Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their
> billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they hav
unctions to help the content providers.
David
-Original Message-
From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:55 AM
To: David Sinn
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
Hi,
>There is also a &quo
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > http://www.broadcast.com/mcisp/
> >
> > I see quite a few cable and dialup providers on there ( and I work for
> > one of 'em... )
>
> It's a cute list. Where's AT&T (with all the old @Home customers)?
> Where AOL? Don't see UU
At 11:16 AM 7/9/2002 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:06:10AM -0500, Chris
>Parker wrote:
> > >My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users
> > >don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast.
> >
> > Yahoo/Broadcast.
Hi,
>There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive
>content?
At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver
for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things: pr0n.
My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality compa
Hi
quick question. how much actual traffic are operators seing from
ipv6-enabled networks? whether native or 6to4.
i.e. if you take the average amount of data sent/received per node,
whether per protocol or per OS, how much of it is able to use V6 currently?
i still find some of the stuff ext
> Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their
> billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given
> moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things
> that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their
> advertise
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 11:16:56AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> It's a cute list. Where's AT&T (with all the old @Home customers)?
> Where AOL? Don't see UUNet either.
UUNET supports multicast, although the quality of that experience
for me wasn't very good. Last I heard its one price to rece
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leo Bicknell) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 16:52 CEST]:
> I'll be the first to jump on the multicast bandwagon, but I don't
> work for an eyeball provider. The first adopters need to be DSL
> and cable modem providers, to the end user, on by default. Then
> we can go somewhere.
And w
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:06:10AM -0500, Chris Parker wrote:
> >My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users
> >don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast.
>
> Yahoo/Broadcast.com pushed this pretty heavily. MS's own media player
> su
roblems.
David
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared
Mauch wrote:
> They are
At 10:51 AM 7/9/2002 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch
>wrote:
> > They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the
> > savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure,
> > break the config, et
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the
> savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure,
> break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on.
Speaking from a provider who
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 03:49:04PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
>
> > Niels Bakker wrote:
> >> It would also be nice if operators with end users started offering
> >> native multicast. Although the AMS-IX multicast initiative started
> >> off with lots of enthusiasm, two years later it seems to h
> Niels Bakker wrote:
>> It would also be nice if operators with end users started offering
>> native multicast. Although the AMS-IX multicast initiative started
>> off with lots of enthusiasm, two years later it seems to have died
>> almost completely.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Petri Helenius) [Tue
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Leinen) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 10:51 CEST]:
> An interesting question is what it would take to support IPv6 on
> appliance-like routers such as IP-over-Cable or -xDSL CPE. In the
> retail space I actually see some interest in running IPv6, because it
> makes it much more fe
> Related to that, a growing number of Internet2 connectors now do native IPv6
> peering with the Abilene backbone (rather than tunnelling their v6
> connectivity), including NYSERnet, the Pittsburgh Gigapop, Great Plains,
> WiscNet, 6Tap, CUDI, ANS, MAX, Surfnet, and APAN. (see, for example:
> h
> "Phil Rosenthal" wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support
> IPV6
>
> As far as I can tell, despite many feature requests to the contrary,
> Foundry barely supports IPV4. Your local Foundry sales ofice can offer
> you a more percise time-line on Found
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:47:52 -0400, "Phil Rosenthal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx
> support IPV6 (I could be wrong).
It is rumored that Cisco has software for the 6500 that does IPv6,
albeit "in software" on the MSFC. And I'm sure they
At 08:59 PM 7/8/2002 -0500, Alif The Terrible wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rizzo Frank wrote:
>
> > Good to hear, Jerry. Have you forged any checks in the past, or are the
> > guys on usenet full of it?
>
>If you're so new as to listen to everything you hear on Usenet, then you
>deserve what yo
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rizzo Frank wrote:
> Good to hear, Jerry. Have you forged any checks in the past, or are the
> guys on usenet full of it?
If you're so new as to listen to everything you hear on Usenet, then you
deserve what you get - GIGO.
Got serious questions? Google is your friend.
Alif The Terrible wrote:
> Afraid not. How about you?
Good to hear, Jerry. Have you forged any checks in the past, or are the
guys on usenet full of it?
Frank Rizzo
And of course in the American higher education space, IPv6 traffic handling
was one of the factors that motivated the selection of Juniper's T640's for
the next generation of the Abilene/Internet2 backbone (see:
http://archives.internet2.edu/guest/archives/I2-NEWS/log200204/msg3.html).
Relat
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rizzo Frank wrote:
> "Phil Rosenthal" wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support
> IPV6
>
> As far as I can tell, despite many feature requests to the contrary,
> Foundry barely supports IPV4. Your local Foundry sales ofice can offer
"Phil Rosenthal" wrote:
> As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support
IPV6
As far as I can tell, despite many feature requests to the contrary,
Foundry barely supports IPV4. Your local Foundry sales ofice can offer
you a more percise time-line on Foundry's planned s
>*If* 2004/2005 is a realistic expectation for a full rollout, then
>*maybe*. The question becomes, is this realistic? I just don't think so.
>
>Judging IP6's current status strictly in light of how far along the large to
>mid sized providers are, I'd be surprised if a full scale rollout was
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> Yes, I don't think we need it 'right now'. My concern is that at this
> point many companies are still buying routers that as of today have no
> support for IPv6. Given that a BigIron/65xx is mostly hardware
> forwarding, I speculate that they wont b
-Original Message-
From: Alif The Terrible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support
> IPV6 (I could be wrong).
>
> While they probably aren't the most popular routers, they are very
>
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support
> IPV6 (I could be wrong).
>
> While they probably aren't the most popular routers, they are very
> popular, and im sure plenty of cisco's smaller routers don't support it
> either
As far as I can tell, neither Foundry Bigiron, nor Cisco 65xx support
IPV6 (I could be wrong).
While they probably aren't the most popular routers, they are very
popular, and im sure plenty of cisco's smaller routers don't support it
either.
How ready is the 'net to transit to IPV6 in the futur
69 matches
Mail list logo
