On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
That's exactly how IPv4 was seen long ago, and we've been and will be living
with that mistake for decades.
It was fixed 15 years ago, but not before more than half the space was
wasted. With IPv6 we can use current policy and only waste a /3 and
then
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com
wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you were going to subnet.
Does
Hello,
I am seeing that www.google.cat resolves from three different networks.
It even resolves from here: http://www.squish.net/dnscheck/
What is going on?
Thanks,
Tim
On 05.05.2009, at 09:33, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Tim Tuppence wrote:
Hello,
I am seeing that www.google.cat resolves from three different
networks.
It even resolves from here: http://www.squish.net/dnscheck/
What is going on?
Why are you expecting it not to?
I think the real question
12mbit DSL: $80
Firefox for platform of choice: $0
Knowing you can do a 10 second google search for answers to simple questions:
priceless
For everything else, there's I Can Has Cheezburger.
Brielle
(Bored, tired, and on her blackberry)
--Original Message--
From: Tim Tuppence
To:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 09:41:41AM +0200,
Chris Meidinger cmeidin...@sendmail.com wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
I think the real question here is why does schroedingers.cat not
resolve,
That's because .cat has IDN and therefore it should be
schrödingers.cat
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
That's exactly how IPv4 was seen long ago, and we've been and will be
living with that mistake for decades.
It was fixed 15 years ago, but not before more than half the space was
wasted. With IPv6 we can use current policy
Hello all,
Free.fr gives us a /64 to our ADSL/FTTH boxes, the autoprov interface does not
give an option for more.
For insights of how Free.fr does thing please see this RIPE presentation:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/ipv6-free.pdf
best regards,
Michel
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jack Bates:
Sorry, Ricky. But that won't work. EUI-64 is required for autoconfig,
and it expands the 48 bits to 64 bits by inserting or FFFE
depending on if the original is a MAC-48 or EUI-48 identifier.
I'm rather puzzled why this blatant layering violation is
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:03:31 -0400, Bill Stewart
nonobvi...@gmail.com wrote:
When I came back, I found this ugly EUI-64 thing instead,
so not only was autoconfiguration much uglier,
but you needed a /56 instead of a /64 if you
Joe Greco wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
I view with suspicion the notion that an ISP is going to take addressing
On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:08:51 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
For today. But, remember, this sort of shortsightedness is what landed
us in the current IPv4 pain.
48bit MACs have caused IPv4 address exhaustion? Wow. I didn't know that.
No, thinking small is what landed us in
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:04:49 +1000
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 04:49 +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm with you. I wish vendors and spec designers would just get over it
and let people subnet however they want.
[...]
do other than 64 and you do not get
Hi
I'm based in Africa and involved in SP/Telco consulting and deployments.
We have a customer that has chosen Alcatel (political choice) as their
Layer-3 core devices for P, MSE, BGP Route Servers and Peering/Transit
devices.
All based on the Alcatel 7750 chassis.
Unfortunately Alcatel is not
We have 42 Alcatel 7x50's deployed currently that are being used as P and PE
devices on our network. We have been very happy with them. We are using
them to offer both VPLS and VPRN service. If you have any specific
questions about what we have seen let me know.
Thanks,
Dan
On Tue, May 5,
([*] according to the wiki, firewire and zigbee are the only things
using EUI-64. I don't know of anyone using firewire as a network
backbone. (obviously, not that you care.) Zigbee is relatively new and
similar to bluetooth; will people use them as a NIC or connect little
zigbee gadgets
Dean Anderson wrote:
Suresh: Did you know that Vixie, Levine, and Joffe were owners and
directors of Whitehat, a spam company that 'listwashes' spam-trap
addresses? If so, then you seem to have some discredit coming, too.
Did you mistake nanog for an anti-spam mailing list? If Vixie was the
They work quite well, specially in combination with Alcatel 5620SAM
management software... we use it for managing most of the aggregation
backbone (MPLS, VPLS, VPRN, etc...).
Also use some of them as border routers to hold some STM-4 and STM-1
links.
I recomend OS version 7. Mostly because of
Hi everyone
This is a quick note to let you know that this thread has been
moderated (trivially off topic). We will continue to assess follow ups
in this thread for operational content, and forward relevant messages
to the list.
If you have any comments on this, please post them to the
From a strictly operational perspective:
The only concern that I had with that request was with the v4 address
blocking. That ought to be rethought in the grand scheme of things i.e. v4
exhaustion. There's a reasonable case to make regarding not tainting hosts
or specific blocks in this manner.
Charles Wyble wrote:
([*] according to the wiki, firewire and zigbee are the only things
using EUI-64. I don't know of anyone using firewire as a network
backbone. (obviously, not that you care.) Zigbee is relatively new
and similar to bluetooth; will people use them as a NIC or connect
Joe Greco wrote:
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several
PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
How is it the ISP's router is able to handle this? Be specific.
I view with suspicion the notion that an ISP is going to take addressing
Joe Greco wrote:
Now, the question is, if you're sending all these prefix requests up to
the ISP's router, why is *that* device able to cope with it, and why is
the CPE device *not* able to cope with it?
The CPE cannot cope with it due to lack of a chaining standard and the
lack of customer
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
What is missing, unless I've missed a protocol (which is always possible), is
an automated way for a CPE to assign it's networks, pass other networks out
to downstream routers in an on-need basis. I say on-need, as there may be 3
routers directly behind
So I found an article about updating the EVDO modem PRL in Linux (or I
should say via a standard AT method)
http://kenkinder.com/using-verizon-wireless-evdo-pc5740-and-linux/
I'll let folks know how it goes.
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as between the ISP
and the home?
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
I see little reason why the main home gateway can't get a /56 from the
ISP, and then hand out /62 (or whatever) to any routers within the
On Tue, 05 May 2009 09:13:06 -0400, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
No, it's not too late to make simple changes. We're still figuring out
lots of bits about it.
Yes, it is too late. IPv6 as it stands is a huge pile of crap and bloat.
We'd be better off straping the whole mess and
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Jack Bates wrote:
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
Are you sure? Isn't it just that the current implementations do?
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then what
about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the router
Ricky Beam wrote:
Yes, we all are. We will all be given a minimum of a /64, while no one
has a need for even a billionth of that space, and aren't likely to for
the forseeable future. When they do, *then* give them the space they
need. Ah, but renumbering is a pain, you say. That's another
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 02:49:01PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then what
about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the router behind
that?
In IA_NA's, there is a (undocumented in RFC 3315) convention to permit
a
Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out
an RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the
sophisticated users who want routed behavior override it manually.
Jack Bates wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
Now, the question is, if you're sending all these
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble char...@thewybles.com
wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's millions
and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they even be able to.
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:28:25 -0400, Charles Wyble
char...@thewybles.com wrote:
Utility companies utilize Zigbee pretty extensively. So that's
millions and millions of addresses right there.
But does the entire planet need to talk to those critters? No. Nor
should they
Jack Bates wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why wouldn't DHCPv6-PD work within the home as well as between the
ISP and the home?
DHCPv6-PD requires manual configuration.
It doesn't need to; that's just a flaw in current implementations.
I see little reason why the main home gateway can't
On 5/5/09 4:38 PM, David W. Hankins david_hank...@isc.org wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:22:04PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote:
Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out an
RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the sophisticated
users who
On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:13:05 -0400, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Actually, they probably would have stuck to a 64 bit address space and
it was debated. Then it came down to, let's make it a 64 bit network
space, and give another 64 bits for hosts (96 bits probably would have
David W. Hankins wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:22:04PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote:
Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out an
RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the sophisticated
users who want routed behavior override it manually.
I would venture a guess that there are atleast two divergent opinions here that
will never be reconciled. I propose you agree to disagree and move forward
... or take the argument back in time about 15 years, when these issues were
being debated and solutions (great, good, mediocre, bad -
The potential problem is segmentation. Start assigning meanings to
chunks of bits, like routing info or even customer type (mobile,
static, etc) or geography, and the bits can get used up pretty
quickly. Or put another way the address space becomes sparsely
populated but inflexible.
I know,
Jumping in against my better judgment ...
The /64 boundary was for a number of reasons, the fact that only autoconfig
breaks when that isn't the case is irrelevant (and not entirely true, but many
of the breakages are minor/not intractable).
Complaining about it now doesn't help, and many
Ricky Beam wrote:
Ah, but they half-assed the solution. IPv6 makes no distinction between
network and host (eg. classless), yet SLAAC forces this oddball,
classful boundry. Routing doesn't care. Even the hosts don't care.
Only the tiny craplet of autoconfig demands the network and host
Not only do we create less usable v4 address space, if these guys
had a clue, and what ever you think of them with $$ envolved clue will
be found... they will just add more IP's from diffrent block, further
'wasting' IP space.
-jim
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Martin Hannigan
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:39:23AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Wow, that's a metaphor that has been not merely mixed, but shaken and
stirred as well. Are you for a move to IPv6 now or not? Is the Pinto
IPv4 or IPv6? What does the exploding gas tank represent?
I'm complaining that
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 20:39:23 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On the other hand - we have DHCPv6 to work around it. Noone HAS to use
SLAAC. ...
Yes, but as long as it exists, someone *will*.
Actually everyone does. The same formula is used for the link local
Is there a nanog IRC channel without all the white power aids herpes 4chan
placenta fag beaner kike asr licks my fat diseased cock jokes? thanks.
For the sake of everyone's sanity this thread has been moderated.
Also, #nanog on efnet is in no way affiliated with NANOG.
Kris
MLC Chair
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 22:43 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
I'm complaining that the IPv6 we're all being asked to use is a buggy
contraption that's best parked until more of it's issues are resolved.
Using it is the fastest way to get issues resolved. It worked for
IPv4... :-)
Expecting all the
Sure, but how does the router know it needs to hand out a /62? Then
what about the router after that? Does it hand out a /61? then the
router behind that?
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57)
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Honest question - what's the difference?
Gruesse, Carsten
Gruesse, K.
--
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Honest question - what's the difference?
Because more is more, and
52 matches
Mail list logo
