On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:27:21PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
I have a feeling that IP addresses will now be used in ways that people
have not envisioned them being used before. Given a surplus of any
resource, people find creative ways of using it.
Encoding high-resolution geographic
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:18 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:27:21PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
I have a feeling that IP addresses will now be used in ways that
On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant or convincing
Servers work just fine over tunnels if necessary too.
Get your public-facing content and services on IPv6 as fast as possible.
Make IPv6 available to your customers as quickly as possible too.
Finally, your internal IT resources (other than your support department(s)) can
probably wait a little
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for IPv6.
It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we haven't
accounted for in some of our current thinking.
Q:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad wrote:
RS,
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
would use about .25 of the total available IPv6 address space.
Sure. I once did the math that suggested
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com writes:
You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
99.9% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry
99.9975% that might have been their
Hi,
Another way of looking at it would be what would the world population need to
be in order to exhaust all of the space v6 based on /48s /56s or /64s per head
/ household - and is this population number ever going to happen in what time
conceivable time frame.
Another interesting
On 10/19/10, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size
Hi,
Maybe we should reserve the first couple of bits to serve as a planet
identifier, so that once we have colonized the heavens Star Trek Federation
style we can route to all of those Billions of life forms.
Routing convergence times shouldn’t be too much of an issue even with light
version
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
SCNR
Jens
--
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are advantages to being able to use 16 bits to build various forms
of hierarchical topology on a dynamic basis within a SOHO environment.
If we reduce that to 8 bits, we will block innovations that are
currently underway in this space.
Can you
Hello,
To have a better overview of a Cloud (or OpenFlow) Switch, I would
greatly appreciate to invite you to a further reading of the
presentation entitled FI technologies on cloud computing and trusty
networking from our partner, Chunghwa Telecom (Leading ISP in Taiwan)
:
In article 201010190123.o9j1njra013...@mail.r-bonomi.com, Robert
Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com writes
Not to mention the fact that the company was originally _named_
Minnesota Mining Manufacturing, and that '3M' was *just* a
logo and trademark.
I recall that in the UK, before Nominet
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:21:29 +0100
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 18/10/2010 12:25, Lin Pica8 wrote:
We are starting to distribute Pica8 Open Source Cloud Switches :
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:10 +0200, Jens Link said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want
On 18/10/10 19:24 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
/48s. No, I don't think that makes all the address assignments the
same size is a particularly relevant
On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for
larger.
ME: I really need larger space
ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give
larger than /32
THE END
or, if you have larger POPs, start
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
Or spots an address which uses letters and colons and looks
syntactically incorrect to them?
Do you really want untrained people working on your network?
--
I would say for most of our customers, especially in the hosting space, a
class C is a /24, they just don't know networking at all and build their
hosting lans using /24s for each vlan.
Very few of the requests that we get are submitted using CIDR notation.
Personally, I think this is a big
Any chance there's someone buried deep within ATT or ATT Wireless that could
contact me off-list? Specifically with regards to wireless and caller-ID?
I've got an issue I've pursued through several channels and am making zero
progress despite assurances to the contrary.
---
Andy Ringsmuth
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Peter Ashwood-Smith
peter.ashwoodsm...@huawei.com wrote:
...
a) bigger layer 2 networks with Vmware type mobility and no IP address
changes. Technolgies in this space are much more than just L2 switching, its
L2 switching on larger scales with encapsulation,
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held
On 10/19/2010 6:24 AM, Dan White wrote:
But I still feel strongly that a /48 assignment model for residential
customers is right for our environment.
Perfectly reasonable. If you've analyzed your situation and come to that
conclusion who am I to argue? Please note, I'm NOT saying, You must
Apologies in advance for the question, as network monitoring is only
slightly relevant to network operations...
I've been digging and poking and scratching my head, and from what
I've been able to find, there doesn't seem to be an IPv6-aware BGP4
MIB in existence. The closest item I could find
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:12 PM
To: Franck Martin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
So they can't run their own services from home and
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.?,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
1986:
I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe
someone spiked my coffee this morning.
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
Hi Matt,
I've been digging and poking and scratching my head, and from what
I've been able to find, there doesn't seem to be an IPv6-aware BGP4
MIB in existence. The closest item I could find was a draft MIB that
has already expired: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-10
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:24:58PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
1986:
I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe
someone spiked my coffee this morning.
Best Regards,
Nathan
On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
Another way of looking at it would be what would the world population need to
be in order to exhaust all of the space v6 based on /48s /56s or /64s per
head / household - and is this population number ever going to happen in what
time
On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are advantages to being able to use 16 bits to build various forms
of hierarchical topology on a dynamic basis within a SOHO environment.
If we reduce that to 8 bits, we will block innovations that
On 10/19/2010 11:53 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:
HS: Where customers = spammers? The only folks I have seen ask
to do 'address rotation' have either been spammers or copyright
monitoring services. I have never seen a request for 'address rotation'
to protect a
On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for
larger.
ME: I really need larger space
ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give larger
than
No, no
Putting your servers on IPv6 is a major task. Load balancers, proprietary code,
log analysis, database records... all that needs to be reviewed to see if it is
compatible with IPv6 (and a few equipments need recent upgrades if even they
can do IPv6 today).
Putting your client
On 10/19/2010 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
When did you ask? If it was more than 6 months ago, then, I would suggest
asking again. If it was less than 6
months ago, can you send me any or all of the correspondence so I can address
it with Leslie and try and
get whatever training issues remain
On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
No, no
Putting your servers on IPv6 is a major task. Load balancers, proprietary
code, log analysis, database records... all that needs to be reviewed to see
if it is compatible with IPv6 (and a few equipments need recent upgrades if
If you run Cisco ACE load balancers and start with your web server farm I
can assure you that you will be stuck because ACE loaad balancers do not
support v6 and don't plan to until mid next year and not without a new
card/cost. If you run ACE in non routed mode then you a doubly stuck because
you
On 10/19/2010 2:27 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
If you run Cisco ACE load balancers and start with your web server farm I
can assure you that you will be stuck because ACE loaad balancers do not
That's not the only product with issues. As previously discussed on
list, there's also issues with DR
We are starting to distribute Pica8 Open Source Cloud Switches :
http://www.pica8.com/
Seeing as you claim they are opensource, could you please point to the
documentation of the hardware?
Specifically, I am looking for information regarding the FPGA/ASIC's
used for forwarding circuit
We have dedicated servers. You get a 10 GHz 24-core CPU with 1TB of
RAM. That's pretty clear and familiar to server geeks.
Is that 10 as in Ten?
On 10/19/2010 10:15 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
I would say for most of our customers, especially in the hosting space, a
class C is a /24, they just don't know networking at all and build their
hosting lans using /24s for each vlan.
Very few of the requests that we get are submitted using
*Dear Colleagues, members of the Nanog Community and CaribNOG* Supporters,
The Caribbean Network Operators Group (CARIBNOG) has the pleasure of
announcing and inviting you to participate in the second 2nd Regional
CaribNOG meeting, CARIBNOG 2, from
Sunday October 31st – Wednesday November 3rd,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
Don't get me wrong. I like the idea. Especially after the discussion I had
We have dedicated servers. ?You get a 10 GHz 24-core CPU with 1TB of
RAM. ?That's pretty clear and familiar to server geeks.
Is that 10 as in Ten?
Yes. It's not meant to be quite real, it's meant as an example that
any server geek ought to be able to figure out what sort of power that
nine years
In message c8e33f22.6369d%z...@zaidali.com, Zaid Ali writes:
If you run Cisco ACE load balancers and start with your web server farm I
can assure you that you will be stuck because ACE loaad balancers do not
support v6 and don't plan to until mid next year and not without a new
card/cost.
So
Still missedworth sharing the still-working links...
http://www.afnog.org/abha_ahuja_bursary/
http://rathe.mur.com/~kobi/abha/
http://www.mur.com/~kobi/abhaold/
http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/abha/
http://gallery.tch.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1951
http://www.nanog.org/scholarships/abha.php
On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
So stick in a IPv6-IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
load balancer.
Nah considering v6 traffic is small I have a simpler solution, I prefer to
set up a temporary web
In message c8e36161.636f0%z...@zaidali.com, Zaid Ali writes:
On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
So stick in a IPv6-IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
load balancer.
Nah considering v6 traffic
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
of IPv6 growth so you can justify him/her to sign off on IPv6 expenses. A
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
of IPv6
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
On 20/10/10 01:52, Matthew Walster wrote:
No, and neither can anyone else... What's more is that they'll not use
.0, .255, .1 (because apparently only routers are supposed to use
that), .254 (who knows...)
There's actually a good reason for that.
MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:41:09 -0700
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
You are confusing SI with Packet Filters. The technologies are
different
and it is, also, important to understand this distinction as well.
I don't think I am confusing the two. I am saying that I have seen
I do not know much about their sales tactics but I can say I used them years
ago for a project and had no technical problems.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: seph [mailto:s...@directionless.org]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Enterprise DNS providers
I
Maybe this is a new business opportunity. What do Enterprise DNS providers
change?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:brandon.galbra...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:30 PM
To: seph
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Enterprise DNS providers
On 10/19/10 9:24 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:24:02 +0200
Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by
a
reference to
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:01:48PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course ifconfig will also happily take whatever mask you feed it in
your choice of notation so it's not exactly a bronze age tool.
first - IPv6 isn't 5x IPv4, its only 4x... :)
and the idea f bronze-age
63 matches
Mail list logo
