I saw 'field' somewhere
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-2.1
seems to agree.
Frank
On 11/19/2010 10:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
express my preference here. While I find the term quibble fun and
amusing, I think
Paul is pretty clueful; I think he was asking for specifics as to what
the layer 8/9 issues are at Equinix, rather than an explanation of
what layer 8 and 9 means.
Fly Fast,
-r
Justin Horstman justin.horst...@gorillanation.com writes:
8 users
9 politics and policies
-Original
:- William == William Herrin b...@herrin.us writes:
Hiya folks,
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
addresses or BGP? Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty. How many of
the rest
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
On 11/18/10 2:24 PM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
[WES] Because in most companies, sales owns the direct relationship with the
customer, so when they ask about a new feature or service, they work with
sales, and sales gets the right technical folks involved. A clarification
that is probably
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:42, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
express my preference here.
I considered using the Condorcet method [1] (modified for NotA), but
as past experience has shown that people get easily confused
George, Wes E [NTK] wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com writes:
Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty.
Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6
deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the
future, before you call my company out in public
Another option is a static BGP tunnel with HE which can be configured
at http://tunnelbroker.net. It's not ideal and only useful for relatively low
bandwidth. If your needs are greater, we would much rather sell
you transit or peer with you as appropriate. As everyone should know
by now, we have
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
That's exactly what I was
Hello,
On 19 nov 2010, at 00:00, Nick Olsen wrote:
That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
native, If they can).
A
I second that, we're only getting ~2665 IPv6 prefixes from Cogent
compared to the ~3650 from our other transits. (been like that for more
then a year now)
Cogent's stance on it is 'You're multihomed with other transits, so
you're still reachable anyways' which strikes me as very odd for
That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
native, If they can).
A few weeks ago I compared what cogent sees
Job Snijders wrote:
They are missing roughly 1000 prefixes.
See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/
which just now when I peeked stated at the top:
8-
2704 good/required prefixes
Minimum of 1714 prefixes (-990)
Average of 3513 prefixes (+809)
Maximum of
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
;)
Scott
On 11/18/10 10:45 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:18:04PM -0800, Sam Chesluk wrote:
2) While the IPSec portion is hardware accelerated, the GRE
encapsulation is not, unless this is a Cat6500/CISCO7600 router, or
7200VXR with C7200-VSA card. Because of this, the GRE process itself
will consume a fairly large amount
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 02:47:35PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
The ISR series do have onboard hardware crypto, but I don't know offhand
if it can handle a full DS3 worth.
My first guess is fragment reassembly would probably kill it fast.
We're not seeing fragmentation. The MTU of the
On 11/19/2010 4:57 AM, George Bonser wrote:
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend to call them
quads at work. What do you
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What now is more disturbing is that there appears to be a couple of
prefixes out there which are not in the ARIN registry anymore which are
still being used (Hexago/Gogo6/Freenet6/nameoftheday's 2001:5c0::/32 is
an exemplary one) but also 2001:1890::/32
On 2010-11-19 16:35, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What now is more disturbing is that there appears to be a couple of
prefixes out there which are not in the ARIN registry anymore which are
still being used (Hexago/Gogo6/Freenet6/nameoftheday's
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:57, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend
to call them quads at work. What do you call that indeterminate space
between two colons :: where it might be four or more zeros in there? That's
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
supper (sic) size?
RIchard
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 17:06 +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris s...@emanon.com wrote:
If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
supper (sic) size?
The supersize option
I'm sorry to quibble with the majority here, but, in this case, I think
we have enough problems with ambiguous terminology in
networking and this opportunity to avoid creating one more should
not be missed.
(The above paragraph was mainly so that I had an opportunity to toss
quibble into the
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical,
Greetings,
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm sorry to quibble with the majority here, but, in this case, I think
we have enough problems with ambiguous terminology in
networking and this opportunity to avoid creating one more should
not be missed.
(The above paragraph was
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 17:58, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
have byte sizes other than 8 bits
Vice versa. It's always two octects, but on some systems it may not be
two bytes.
, although few of them are likely to
On Thursday 18 November 2010 18:18:04 Sam Chesluk wrote:
There are a couple potential issues, that when looked at in whole, add
up to a significant performance impact.
1) IPSec + GRE involves two forwarding operations, one to send it to the
tunnel interface , and another to send the
I have a quibble with this discussion. When I defined a byte as a mouthful
of bits to my boss back in 1977, he nearly fired me on the spot. He did not
care about PDP-10 , much less PDP-11, data constructs.
By now, octet has become essentially synonymous with byte and nibble with
4-bits.
On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Mark Andrews wrote:
Firstly I would use a tunnel broker instead of 6to4. Easier to
debug failures.
Thanks all for the helpful response. Using the same names for IPv6 and
IPv4 doesn't appear to be much of a problem, especially considering this
is a trial which concerns office/home ISP
On 11/19/10 10:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
It is always two OCTETS. A byte is not always an octet...
Assuming you have a v6 stack on your cdc6600 a v6 address fits in 22
bytes not 16.
have byte sizes other than 8 bits,
It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee
with a unanimous (!) vote :
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unanimous-support.ars
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Hartmann
richih.mailingl...@gmail.com wrote:
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 11/19/10 12:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The meaningful boundaries in the protocol itself are nibble and /64.
If you want socially significant boundaries, add /12, /32 and /48.
It is possible and desirable to be able to
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:45, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
I have an anti-naming proposal: Allow users to place the colons
-anywhere- or even leave them out altogether without changing the
semantics of the IPv6 address.
A decade or two of established syntax disagree. IPv6 addresses,
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Bit, nibble and /64 then. /64 is treated specially by functions in the
protocol (like SLAAC) thus it's a protocol boundary rather than a
social one (/12 IANA allocations, /32 ISP allocations, /48 end-user
assignments).
I
In message 4ce6d919.2000...@mompl.net, Jeroen van Aart writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Firstly I would use a tunnel broker instead of 6to4. Easier to
debug failures.
Thanks all for the helpful response. Using the same names for IPv6 and
IPv4 doesn't appear to be much of a problem,
I would like to know the issues as well because we are looking to going
into at least 4 of their centers.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:30 AM
To: Justin Horstman
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Mehmet Akcin
40 matches
Mail list logo
