NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
Already updated my martians acl and deployed it internally...
and i have configured two home LANs to use it
randy
2012/3/15 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
William Herrin wrote:
I've been an IRTF RRG participant and in my day job I build backend
systems for mobile messaging devices used in some very challenging and
very global IP and non-IP environments.
I know non-IP mobile environment
;-) So that is what very rough consensus looks like operationally!
IESG Note
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg09959.html
Christian
On 15 Mar 2012, at 06:59, Randy Bush wrote:
NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
Already
FYI, from ISOC Chapter delegates list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Michiel Leenaars mich...@staff.isoc.nl
Date: Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM
Dear all,
FYI:
just wanted to signal to the chapter delegates that I just found
out that the next Internet Governance Forum will
;-) So that is what very rough consensus looks like operationally!
seems to be
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 01:18:04PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As long as we keep using IPv4, we are mostly stopping at /24 and
must stop at /32.
But, see the subject. It's well above moore.
For high speed (fixed time) routed look up with 1M entries, SRAM is
cheap at /24 and is fine at
William Herrin wrote:
I know non-IP mobile environment is heavily encumbered. So, I
can understand why you insist on using DNS for mobility only
to make IP mobility as encumbered as non-IP ones.
I don't understand your statement. None of the technologies I work
with use the word encumbered
Eugen Leitl wrote:
For high speed (fixed time) routed look up with 1M entries, SRAM is
cheap at /24 and is fine at /32 but expensive and power consuming
TCAM is required at /48.
That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
What prevents you from using
Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
;-) So that is what very rough consensus looks like operationally!
IESG Note
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg09959.html
Instead, I wonder whether the last phrases of the note, the IETF
remain committed to the deployment of IPv6 is
Le 21/02/12 17:46, Ido Szargel a écrit :
It seems that there are 2 major players - FranceIX and Equinix FR, can
anyone share their opinions about those?
Equinix-IX is cheaper (free Gig-e port) and has more member (including a
few big eyeball players with restrictive or selective policies).
Le 15/03/12 07:59, Randy Bush a écrit :
and i have configured two home LANs to use it
So wrong...
--
Jérôme Nicolle
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:57:10PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
What prevents you from using
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/full/ncomms1063.html
with IPv6?
Though I didn't paid $32 to read the full paper, it's like
a
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:57:10PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
What prevents you from using
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/full/ncomms1063.html
with IPv6?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25:46AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably
violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create
the Internet's topology. In other words, they always end up stealing
bandwidth on links
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:41, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25:46AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably
violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create
the Internet's topology.
On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
thanks! history is important here.
Policy proposals for specialized technical allocations
are best considered by the IETF. ARIN was aware of the
RFC 2860 (the MOU between ICANN and the IAB) which said
as much, and once we confirmed this
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Mar 14, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
thanks! history is important here.
reading this this morning, my comment sounds more flippant than I
meant. I really did mean that getting the details right was
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25:46AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably
violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create
the Internet's
2012/3/15 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
William Herrin wrote:
I know non-IP mobile environment is heavily encumbered. So, I
can understand why you insist on using DNS for mobility only
to make IP mobility as encumbered as non-IP ones.
I don't understand your statement. None
2012/3/14 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
stuff deleted
For high speed (fixed time) routed look up with 1M entries, SRAM is
cheap at /24 and is fine at /32 but expensive and power consuming
TCAM is required at /48.
That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:31:42 EDT, William Herrin said:
2012/3/15 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
OK. You are bell headed.
If you want to be snippy in English, you should first gain a better
command of the language. Neither of your previous statements has a
meaning recognized
I don't think the term means what Masataka thinks it means, because nobody
in this discussion is talking in terms of circuits rather than packet routing.
Geographical addressing can tend towards bellhead thinking, in the sense that
it assumes a small number (one?) of suppliers servicing all
I was wondering if anyone has any experience with Adconion Direct?
It is the standard we want a server with lots of IP's. And I am thinking
he is probably a spammer or what not. However unlike most of the
requests we get like this, they look to have the most legit looking
profile I have seen.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:52:54 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
Get real. Even EAPS takes 0.05 seconds to recover from an unexpected
link failure
If you keep two or more links, keep them alive, and let them
know their IP addresses each other, which can be coordinated
by mobile hosts as the ends,
Hi
I do. I know their head of Ops (Hal) quite well as I used to work with him
at a previous company.
They are an advertising delivery network, rather than spammers. I've pinged
him on Skype to ask more.
thanks
Andrew
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Mark Keymer m...@viviotech.net wrote:
What, senior network people testing out new test/transitional space at
home before they test it at work is bad?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
Le 15/03/12 07:59, Randy Bush a écrit :
and i have configured two home LANs to use it
So wrong...
--
More like wasting no time in fulfilling the prophesy that people will
treat it like just another rfc1918 space and deploy it wherever they want.
not that randy is likely to get bitten because he's not behind a cgn
nor is he planning to be, but still, that took all of what, 72 hours?
-r
George
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:35:13 PDT, George Herbert said:
What, senior network people testing out new test/transitional space at
home before they test it at work is bad?
Either that, or Randy was being snarky about how long the promise to *only* use
the address space for numbering CGN interfaces
I'm sure it happened much sooner than 72 hours post allocation. In fact, there
were probably folks already squatting on that space long before any of this.
Maybe their life just got a little easier. :)
Cheers,
-Benson
On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
More like
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
More like wasting no time in fulfilling the prophesy that people will
treat it like just another rfc1918 space and deploy it wherever they want.
not that randy is likely to get bitten because he's not behind a cgn
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
Le 15/03/12 07:59, Randy Bush a écrit :
and i have configured two home LANs to use it
More like wasting no time in fulfilling the prophesy that people will
treat it like just another rfc1918 space and deploy it
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
More like wasting no time in fulfilling the prophesy that people will
treat it like just another rfc1918 space and deploy it wherever they want.
not that randy is
Eugen Leitl wrote:
So, I should ask what prevents you from using it with IPv4?
Because IPv4 will be legacy by the time something like this lands,
Maybe. But, IPv6 will be so before IPv4 (or, is already IMHO).
and because IPv6 needs more bits/route so more pain there.
Feel free to propose
William Herrin wrote:
A difficulty to understand the end to end principle is to
properly recognize ends.
Here, you failed to recognize home agents as the essential
ends to support reliable communication to mobile hosts.
A device which relays IP packets is not an endpoint, it's a router.
james machado wrote:
For high speed (fixed time) routed look up with 1M entries, SRAM is
cheap at /24 and is fine at /32 but expensive and power consuming
TCAM is required at /48.
That's one reason why we should stay away from IPv6.
I found this bit of research from 2007 (
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:31:07 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
Here is an exercise for you insisting on DNS, an intermediate
system.
What if DNS servers, including root ones, are mobile?
So, is this question more like:
What if computers worked in trinary?
or
What if people show criminal
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
If you keep two or more links, keep them alive, and let them
know their IP addresses each other, which can be coordinated
by mobile hosts as the ends, links can cooperate to avoid
broken links for a lot faster recovery than 0.05s.
May work for detecting a
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You're asking a what if for a usage case that nobody sane has suggested.
If you are saying it's insane to use DNS to manage frequently
changing locations of mobile hosts instead of relying on
immobile home agents, I fully agree with you.
2012/3/15 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You're asking a what if for a usage case that nobody sane has suggested.
If you are saying it's insane to use DNS to manage frequently
changing locations of mobile hosts instead of relying on
immobile
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:29:44 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You're asking a what if for a usage case that nobody sane has suggested.
If you are saying it's insane to use DNS to manage frequently
changing locations of mobile hosts instead of relying on
immobile
Anybody know somebody with actual clue at humana.com? The security address I
have bounces with no such user, and their website is sufficiently screwed up
that supported browsers is hidden under Legal information. I've identified
multiple issues that their infosec team probably wants to deal
clue is hard to find these days :(
most people seem to not have any clue at all not even a little
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:10 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Anybody know somebody with actual clue at humana.com? The security
address I
have bounces with no such user, and their website is
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
More like wasting no time in fulfilling the prophesy that people will
treat it like just another rfc1918 space and deploy it wherever they want.
The draft indicates you can deploy it anywhere as long as you meet the
We have the same problem in our FTTH access network (due to L2 isolation CPE
can't directly ARP those in the same subnet), hence the vendor's move
towards MAC force forwarding (MACFF).
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012
2012/3/15 Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp:
Even ordinary routers are ends w.r.t. routing protocols, though
they also behave as intermediate systems to other routers.
As LS requires less intelligence than DV, it converges faster.
I do believe that's the first time I've heard
So we have a wiki list of 1U rack hosting.
How about a list of SP's willing to configure BGP over whatever you got,
including tunnels? And willing to allocate you space for same?
Put me down there.
Joe
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:41:18PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
So we have a wiki list of 1U rack hosting.
We do? where? all I see on http://nanog.cluepon.net is spam
How about a list of SP's willing to configure BGP over whatever you got,
including tunnels? And willing to allocate you space
William Herrin wrote:
As LS requires less intelligence than DV, it converges faster.
I do believe that's the first time I've heard anybody suggest that a
link state routing protocol requires less intelligence than a
distance vector protocol.
I mean intelligence as intermediate systems.
DV
48 matches
Mail list logo
