In message 9c391c3a-3535-4c47-a743-572876859...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli write
s:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 56e0fb8f-bb53-4db0-829b-39dfbab48...@bogus.com, Joel =
Jaeggli write
s:
=20
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
=20
=3D20
On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I didn't claim it would work with existing CPE equipment. Declaring
6to4 historic won't work with existing CPE equipment either.
If the hosts behind it stop using 2002::/16 addresses as a product of a
software update which seems rather
i will not dispute this, not my point. but i have to respect dino and
the lisp fanboys (and, yes, they are all boys) for actually *doing*
something after 30 years of loc/id blah blah blah (as did hip). putting
their, well dino's, code where their mouths were and going way out on a
limb.
[
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I fear that at its worst and most successful, LISP ensures ipv4 is the
backbone transport media to the detriment of ipv6 and at its best, it
is a distraction for folks that need to be making ipv6 work, for real.
i suspect that a
Jeff,
On Jul 12, 2011, at 20:13 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I'll pick on LISP as an example, since many operators are at least
aware of it. Some operators have said we need a locator and identifier
split. Interesting
Hello Jeff,
On 13 Jul 2011, at 10:08, Luigi Iannone wrote:
Jeff,
On Jul 12, 2011, at 20:13 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I'll pick on LISP as an example, since many operators are at least
aware of it. Some operators have
Luigi, you have mis-understood quite a bit of the content of my
message. I'm not sure if this is of any further interest to NANOG
readers, but as it is basically what seems to go on a lot, from my
observations of IETF list activity, I'll copy my reply to the list as
you have done.
On Wed, Jul
Jeff,
on one point we agree, there is value in continuing this thread.
I've tried to bring the discussion back to the technical issues, but I failed.
Personally, I find your emails aggressive and close to offensive in some
sentences.
Differently from you, in my replies (all of them public) I
On Jul 13, 2011, at 13:03 , Luigi Iannone wrote:
Jeff,
on one point we agree, there is value in continuing this thread.
There is _no_ value.
my mistake...
Luigi
I've tried to bring the discussion back to the technical issues, but I failed.
Personally, I find your emails
Has anyone been able to configure ipv4 and ipv6 AFI with VRF instances
simultaneously? Using
the 7200 and 12.4(25e), under the ipv6 address family the VRF sub commands
are not visible,
must be a feature?
thanx in advance,
Mike
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 04:13:10PM +0200, Mattias Ahnberg wrote:
I might have missed some discussion; but why are we moving
away from mailman, and what software is in the new system?
Seconded. Mailman is presently the gold standard for mailing list
management [1], and while a lift-and-drop of
hmmm, looks like I am looking for the multiprotocol vrf feature that is only
supported in the
modular IOS trains for the CRS and ASR platforms, can anyone confirm that?
Mike
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:14 AM, harbor235 harbor...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone been able to configure ipv4 and ipv6
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, harbor235 wrote:
Has anyone been able to configure ipv4 and ipv6 AFI with VRF instances
simultaneously? Using
the 7200 and 12.4(25e), under the ipv6 address family the VRF sub commands
are not visible,
must be a feature?
I have a 7200 running in my lab with 12.4(24e) and
Cisco IOS 12.4(24)T2(C7200-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2) supports
vpnv6 and ipv6 vrf address families.
13.07.2011, 17:47, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, harbor235 wrote:
Has anyone been able to configure ipv4 and ipv6 AFI with VRF instances
Good response Jimmy. I think that peoples tact more than anything is
what is embarrassing about these threads. The complaint is legitimate.
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 07/12/2011 09:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM,
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
randy
Hello, and thanks for all the help.
What the issue boiled down to, I was creating the access list just
like the static command. Which means I was using the source and
destination ports when creating it. You just need the destination port,
actually because the firewall catches
Mike,
Support came in a later 12.4T train release, although you're probably best
going to 15.0M at this point. You need advanced IP services,Advanced
enterprise services or SP services. Consult cisco.com/go/fn. Both VRF and
VRF-lite IPV6 support are under the same feature, but I forget what
JA == Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
JA - Original Message -
From: Ben Carleton b...@bencarleton.com
* The mailing list is stripping out all Received: headers from prior
to the message hitting the listserver
JA You're the third person to report that, but *I* am seeing
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
which also could be considered to be in the
Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections here.
As a 1:1 NAT mechanism it works pretty well, I can
Unconfigured bulk_mailer = lots of unsolicited bulk mail
Oh well
--srs
Sent from my iPad
On 13-Jul-2011, at 19:43, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
JA == Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com writes:
JA - Original Message -
From: Ben Carleton b...@bencarleton.com
* The mailing
On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700
On Jul 13, 2011 7:50 AM, Seth Mos seth@dds.nl wrote:
Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
have been worth it? LISP apparently has
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
I couldn't agree more. If you set up private address space, it's going
to come back and make more work for you later. Set up public IPv6
addresses. If you need stateful connection filtering, put in a
stateful firewall.
If you really really need address obfuscation, you can still do NAT,
but NAT
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed
changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.
I guess I should clarify: I think ILNP is elegant. But the real
Internet evolves incrementally, and only as
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status:
Scott,
I am not so sure that Randy's suggestion can be dismissed out of hand.
When we started down the path of locator/identifier separation, we did so
because the separation of locators and identifiers might solve some real
operational problems. We were not so interested in architectural
On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Ammon wrote:
On your management nets (network device management nets) , what's the best
approach for addressing them? Do you use ULA? Or do you use global addresses
and just depend on router ACLs to protect things? How close are we to having
a central
On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
At this point, it might be interesting to do the following:
- enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
- enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296
- execute a cost/benefit analysis on both solutions
I'll let
Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into networking /
communications industry which areas of study or specialty would you
prioritize?
Thanks
Larry Stites
NCNetworks, Inc.
Nevada City, CA 95959
On 2011-07-13 23:08 , Larry Stites wrote:
Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into networking /
communications industry which areas of study or specialty would you
prioritize?
Google.
Greets,
Jeroen
On (2011-07-13 14:08 -0700), Larry Stites wrote:
Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into networking /
communications industry which areas of study or specialty would you
prioritize?
Again? Buy AAPL, INTC and MSFT with loan money and study *cough*, finer things
in life.
/lurk
Learn how to delegate -everything-, and actually do -nothing-...
.. how to blame someone else when something goes wrong, even if it's
-your- fault,
and take full credit whenever anything goes well, even if it -isn't- yours..
Then, and only then, Grasshopper,
you will be ready for
Women
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 07/13/2011 04:08 PM, Larry Stites wrote:
Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into networking /
communications industry which areas of study or specialty would you
prioritize?
Thanks
Larry Stites
Original Message -
From: -Hammer- bhmc...@gmail.com
On 07/13/2011 04:08 PM, Larry Stites wrote:
Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into networking /
communications industry which areas of study or specialty would you
prioritize?
Women
+30.
Cheers,
-- jra
Saku nailed it. Learn the networking basics and underlying concepts
(OSI!), everything else is an application that runs on that, and can
be picked up pretty easily if you understand what it depends on.
Wireshark (or your favorite capture tool) is your friend.
That said, I feel knowing some of
Get an executive MBA then you can dictate to us lowly techs what technology we
will use without ever having to know why. Plus you will earn 10x the $$$ by the
time you are 30 without having to recertify every couple years.
From: Scott Berkman
Given what you know now, if you were 21 and just starting into
networking / communications industry which areas of study or specialty
would you prioritize?
But in all seriousness, networking like I suppose most professions are not
about knowing one thing and stopping. It's evolving
On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
- enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
Separation of locator/ID is a fundamental architectural principle which
transcends transport-specific (i.e., IPv4/IPv6) considerations. It allows for
node/application/services agility, and
I also view RFC6296 as a perpetuation of the clear violation of the
end-to-end principle (i.e., ' . . . functions placed at low levels of
a system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the
cost of providing them at that low level . . .') embodied in the
abomination of NAT/PAT
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
not to quibble but i thought 6296 was stateless.
AFAICT, the translators themselves are just rewriting addresses and not paying
attention to 'connections', which is all to the good. But then we get to this:
-
5.2. Recommendations for
In message 430fff20-43ed-45bb-846d-fee8769fc...@bogus.com, Joel Jaeggli write
s:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
I didn't claim it would work with existing CPE equipment. Declaring
6to4 historic won't work with existing CPE equipment either.
If the hosts behind
45 matches
Mail list logo
