Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: or working out how many addresses a site needs when handing out address blocks At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I quoted above... it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this statement

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

You make a point, but those ipv6 addresses would not be a available to my cpe. I would agree that if your cpe is less than 5 years old, it should support ipv6. On October 2, 2015 12:30:56 AM ADT, Mark Andrews wrote: > >In message

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

In message <560e1f7c.6030...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes: > On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > or working out how many addresses a > > site needs when handing out address blocks > > At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I > quoted above... > > it

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Greetings, Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone creating a new email server, but would that not be easier then trying

/27 the new /24

I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were talking about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept prefixes smaller than a /24. A few were saying they thought about going down to as small as a /27. This was mainly due to more networks coming online and not

Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

Hi, probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see: show route 100.64.0.0/10 inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown, 3898 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 14:46:05, MED 100, localpref 100

RE: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

I think more focus needs to be for carriers to deliver dual stack to their customers door step, whether they demand/use it or not. Small ISPs are probably in the best position to do this and will help push the big boys along with time. If we follow the network effect (reason why IPv4 lives and

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

I may be able to justify it to ARIN, but I can't make a quadrupling of ARIN's fees justifiable to me. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mel Beckman"

Re: wanted: tool for traffic generation / characteristics / monitoring

I guess you are looking for something like this http://traffic.comics.unina.it/software/ITG/ D-ITG (Distributed Internet Traffic Generator) is a platform capable to > produce traffic at packet level accurately replicating appropriate > stochastic processes for both IDT (*Inter Departure Time*)

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Once upon a time, Stephen Satchell said: > THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW > > I can see, in shared hosting, where each customer gets one IPv6 > address to support HTTPS "properly". All the browsers in common use (except IE on XP, which shouldn't be in common use) handle SNI just

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force

> Greetings, > > Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be > preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just > drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone > creating a new email server, but would that not be easier

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Every provider gets a /32, according to ARIN. IPv6 - INITIAL ALLOCATIONS Type of Resource RequestCriteria to Receive Resource ISP Initial Allocation /32 minimum allocation (/36 upon request) NRPM 6.5.1 * Have a previously justified IPv4

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

On 10/02/2015 12:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said: Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers. So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48. A

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is > > delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers. > > A hoster is a LIR. It isn't the end customer. I think you are wrong here for a lot of szenarios. Today we have

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Philip Dorr" To: "Rob McEwen"

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 05:58:59PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is > answer this simple question: > > How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards > compatible with existing IPv4 hosts requiring no software > modification

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

In message <132752.1443772...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:46:47 -0500, Doug McIntyre said: > > > I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where OSX > > generates a new random IPv6 address, applies it to the interface, and

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:46:40AM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:46:47 -0500, Doug McIntyre said: > > > I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where OSX > > generates a new random IPv6 address, applies it to the interface, and then > > drops

AW: /27 the new /24

Hi, this would at least help to get rid of many old routing engines around the world :) ... or people would keep their "learn nothing smaller than /24" filters in place. Also an option - but not for companies who act as an IP transit provider. best regards Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network &

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

Hi Justin, I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST accept only correct networks. Or not ? Ciao, Marco 2015-10-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Justin M. Streiner : > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: > > Hi, >> probably this route is wrong,

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote: > However, what do we do about the new networks which > want to do BGP but only can get small allocations from > someone (either a RIR or one of their upstreams)? Hi Justin, Rent or sell them a /24 and make money. If

Re: /27 the new /24

Much m ore than I'm willing to spend. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Matthew Kaufman" To: "Justin Wilson - MTIN"

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG < > nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +,

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Why would they go "IPv6 only" if it costs them huge customer bases? *** anecdote below *** I hosted a discussion about IPv6 the other day to a room full of highly technically-proficient millennials (being maybe in the older portion of "millennial", myself - In spite of how I must sound, I'm

Re: /27 the new /24

How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If someone's network can't match that today, should I really have any pity for them? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Rob McEwen wrote: it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this statement might betray your premise. A site needing more than 1 address... subtly implies different usage case scenarios... for different parts or different addresses on that block...

Re: /27 the new /24

Cheaper than buying everyone TCAM Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Oct 2, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Much m ore than I'm willing to spend. ;-) > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > >

Re: /27 the new /24

On 2 Oct 2015, at 10:50, Mike Hammett wrote: If someone's network can't match that today, should I really have any pity for them? In my view, no. Hardware-based routers with sufficient RIB/FIB/TCAM are table-stakes for edge connectivity. But it's easy for me to spend other people's money.

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST accept only correct networks. Or not ? They should filter out routes that are not supposed to be globally routable, but many providers don't do this, unfortunately. jms

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers? Keep in mind that the net is now basically another broadcast medium. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:33 AM Steve Mikulasik wrote: > I think more focus needs to

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Marco Paesani wrote: Hi, probably this route is wrong, see RFC 6598, as you can see: show route 100.64.0.0/10 inet.0: 563509 destinations, 1528595 routes (561239 active, 0 holddown, 3898 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 100.100.1.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

The problem with this is some of us smaller guys don't have the ability to get IPv6 addresses from our upstream providers that don't support it. And even if we did do dual stack, then we're paying for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The cost is just too high. ARIN should give anyone with a

AW: /27 the new /24

Welcome to the real world ... Cisco SUP720-3BXL Cisco RSP720-3BXL and even the new and shiny SUP2T only supports 1 Mio routes (dicvided to IPv4 MPLS, IPv4 VRF, IPv4 global routes, etc). I guess this is still the truth: there are at least a few ten thousand of these devices running big parts

Re: Wrong use of 100.64.0.0/10

On 2 October 2015 at 16:10, Marco Paesani wrote: > Hi Justin, > I know that we must filter this type of route, but AS9498 (upstream) MUST > accept only correct networks. > Or not ? > Ciao, > Marco You are correct. AS-9730 shoudn't be advertising this range. AS-9498 shouldn't

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/2/15, 10:48 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Cryptographrix" wrote: >For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from >providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers? If they'd like to continue growing at something above

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 1 October 2015 at 16:12, Peter Beckman wrote: > Then the teacher said "The toothpaste is the Internet. Once it's deployed, > it is nearly impossible to put it back the way it was."* > > Beckman > > * OK, the teacher said "The toothpaste are your words. Once they come out,

Re: /27 the new /24

Besides which more than one provider filters by a minimum prefix length per /8 - wasn't Swisscom or someone similar doing that? So multi homing with even a /24 is somewhat patchy in terms of effectiveness --srs > On 02-Oct-2015, at 8:54 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On

Re: Quick Update on the North American BCOP Efforts

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:58:49AM -0500, Roland Dobbins wrote: > So, educating folks to the point that they understand that the > problem space exists is The Problem, writ large. I strongly concur with this. While there are some amazing experts out there who provide exemplary models of how to

Re: /27 the new /24

A /24 isn't that expensive yet... Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote: > > I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were talking > about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/02/2015 07:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik wrote: I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it working to the people and we can figure out the rest later. The reality is that if customers can get it

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

On 10/01/2015 08:18 PM, corta...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone creating a new email server,

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc. -- Hugo h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber also on TextSecure & RedPhone From: Damian Menscher -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45 > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert

Re: /27 the new /24

In a message written on Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:47:31AM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote: > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not > filtering out anything shorter than /24? My expectation is that they are > dropping shorter than /24, just like I am. Not exactly, but it's

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > Bill, I see where I went wrong now that I went back and re-read your > comment. I was conflating "longer" and "shorter". Thanks for your patience > on this trying Friday. Hi Jason, No sweat. Bit of an interesting

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router > I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If > someone's network can't match that today, should I really have > any pity for them? Hi Mike, The

Re: /27 the new /24

Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small business with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big business with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support big router. I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't

Re: /27 the new /24

There would be a default route sure - but the filter simply means that if your packets from say a src IP in a level 3 /24 (where the minimum alloc size was what, /20) wouldn't go through if you sent them though say a cogent interface --srs > On 02-Oct-2015, at 10:04 PM, William Herrin

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Unfortunately, the files at the NANOG links you posted are not available, but I think I get the premise of them from their summaries and what you're trying to say - thank you for linking. The discussion about CGN maintenance versus IPv6 adoption is important at the NANOG level because of exactly

Re: /27 the new /24

Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not filtering out anything shorter than /24? My expectation is that they are dropping shorter than /24, just like I am. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every *NOG BGP best practices document I've read has advocated dropping all

Re: /27 the new /24

On Oct 2, 2015 12:47 PM, "Jason Baugher" wrote: > > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not filtering out anything shorter than /24? My expectation is that they are dropping shorter than /24, just like I am. You mean longer. A /16 is shorter

Re: /27 the new /24

Bill, I see where I went wrong now that I went back and re-read your comment. I was conflating "longer" and "shorter". Thanks for your patience on this trying Friday. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 12:47 PM, "Jason Baugher"

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Hi, Stop counting /64 subnets the same way you count ipv4 addresses. The proper concept to be able to have plug-and-play customer-grade network equipment would be to use prefix delegation. Thus counting levels of network devices instead. Consider the scenario in the attached sketch. It's a

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Hardware upgrades aren’t difficulty inherent in the protocol. Sure, everyone has to upgrade their hardware sometimes. Whether it’s to get IPv6 capable hardware or to address some other need, periodic hardware upgrades are a simple fact of life. However, if TW put up IPv6 tomorrow as

Re: /27 the new /24

On 02/10/15 15:32, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote: > I was in a discussion the other day and several Tier2 providers were > talking about the idea of adjusting their BGP filters to accept > prefixes smaller than a /24. A few were saying they thought about > going down to as small as a /27. This was

Re: /27 the new /24

My incorrect verbiage aside, what did you think about the question I asked? On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2015 12:47 PM, "Jason Baugher" wrote: > > > > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 21:47 , Rob McEwen wrote: > > On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically >> a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6 >> addresses that causes this not

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Besides which more than one provider filters by a minimum prefix length > per /8 - wasn't Swisscom or someone similar doing that? So multi > homing with even a /24 is somewhat patchy in terms of effectiveness

Re: /27 the new /24

* t...@ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) [Fri 02 Oct 2015, 18:34 CEST]: Any RIR - or LIR - that considers allocating space in sizes smaller than a /24 (for the purpose of announcing to the DFZ) would do well to read this report from RIPE Labs:

Re: /27 the new /24

There are lots of transits that will take le 32 on their customers inbound but filter le 24 on egress announcements. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > Are you suggesting that the Tier 1 and 2's that I connect to are not > filtering out anything

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 18:37 , Todd Underwood wrote: > > Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented > late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is > trolling. > > There are multiple translation systems and

Weekly Routing Table Report

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, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 20:58 , Rob McEwen wrote: > > On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's >> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's >> still need to justify their address space

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 22:46 , Doug McIntyre wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: >> On 26/Sep/15 16:34, David Hubbard wrote: >>> Has anyone run into this? Our users on other platforms don't seem to >>> have this issue; linux and MS desktops

AW: /27 the new /24

> Stop using old shit. Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue works and you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade networks. Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax:

Re: /27 the new /24

Unfounded claim and a personal attack... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: > > Stop using old shit. > > Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how

Re: /27 the new /24

>From a Slack chat I'm in with a few other Mikrotik guys (one of whom seems to >have a direct line to get feature requests done) : "Something has changed at Mikrotik. It's like they want to be great again." - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Re: /27 the new /24

Often I find that used Cisco gear is more reliable and just as affordable than newer gear with that tasty, flakey crust. I've had a terrible time with CCRs falling over with 1GB traffic while Cisco L3 3750s don't even breathe hard at 10Gbps. I see no reason to use anything like 2500w even with

Re: /27 the new /24

Can I suggest you not use a $1000 software driven device to do the job of a 500 watt device on a 10 Gbps network? Mikrotik has its faults, yes, but it certainly has a place as well. That just happens to not be where the $4,000 Cisco is. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

From: Cryptographrix > Date: Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM To: "George, Wes" > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" >

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

Hrm. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Jürgen Jaritsch" To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG" Sent: Friday,

Re: /27 the new /24

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Niels Bakker wrote: * t...@ninjabadger.net (Tom Hill) [Fri 02 Oct 2015, 18:34 CEST]: Any RIR - or LIR - that considers allocating space in sizes smaller than a /24 (for the purpose of announcing to the DFZ) would do well to read this report from RIPE Labs:

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between > an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host. i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows: "it was never possible to design a smooth

Re: /27 the new /24

You guys really don't need to argue on list. There are a lot of people subscribed here and I don't feel as if anything constructive is being accomplished. On Oct 2, 2015 4:07 PM, "Justin M. Streiner" wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Niels Bakker wrote: > > *

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

that's crazy. why would you want a simple way to boostrap more addresses from what we have now? you'll never make yourself into an internationally known ipvNEXT advocate with engineering like that. more advocacy. less engineering! t On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, William Herrin

Re: /27 the new /24

It's not only about TCAM (and it's price), but also about convergence times... On 2.10.2015 17:48, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > Cheaper than buying everyone TCAM > > Matthew Kaufman smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html There's always a way. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 06:58:43 -0500 Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:46:40AM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu > wrote: > > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:46:47 -0500, Doug McIntyre said: > > > > > I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where > > >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger > > http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html > > There's always a way. > > Regards, >

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Oct 2 21:14:51 2015 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri 2015-Oct-02 09:43:40 -0700, Hugo Slabbert wrote: My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc. -- Hugo h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber also on TextSecure & RedPhone From: Damian Menscher -- Sent:

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake I understand the comment, but I see some issues with it. The problem isn't that

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 24-Sep-15 -to- 01-Oct-15 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS9829 156822 3.7% 115.6 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN 2 - AS21669

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Why are some people here asserting that IPv6 failed when it looks like it is actually taking off pretty good right now? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Jan 2013 about 1% Jan 2014 about 2.5% Jan 2015 about 5% It is already past 9% so we will be at least at 10% by Jan 2016.

Re: AW: AW: /27 the new /24

Well said, Jürgen! -mel via cell > On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > sorry, this was probably sent to quick ... let me please explain my POV of > your statement: > > I want to concentrate my detailed answer only to the backbone situation

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message <560e9a20.7090...@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes: > On 10/02/2015 07:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik wrote: > > I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on > > device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it > > working to the people and we

Re: wanted: tool for traffic generation / characteristics / monitoring

Also check Shunra Best regards, Dmitry Sherman Interhost Networks www.interhost.co.il dmi...@interhost.net Mob: 054-3181182 Sent from Steve's creature On 2 באוק׳ 2015, at 17:28, Antonio Ojea Garcia

AW: AW: /27 the new /24

Hi Mike, sorry, this was probably sent to quick ... let me please explain my POV of your statement: I want to concentrate my detailed answer only to the backbone situation which is often handled by the 6500/7600 - I guess all of us know that the 6500/7600 has a ton of additional features ...

Re: AW: AW: /27 the new /24

I don't expect carriers to be running UBNT\Mikrotik, but the boxes that have been there for 10 years have more than paid for themselves (unless they're a shitty business). It's time to rip and replace with whatever is appropriate for that site. No, I obviously don't think I'm going to change

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 02/10/2015 04:52, Curtis Maurand wrote: If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer work. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the shelf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to replace the hardware.

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said: > Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is > delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers. So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48. A hoster getting *just* a /48 is about as silly as a

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:16:50 -, Todd Underwood said: > yes. huh. funny about that, right? what do you think accounts for that? > *why* do you think that *17* *years* later people are still just barely > using this thing. The fact that dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere is a Bad

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:46:47 -0500, Doug McIntyre said: > I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where OSX > generates a new random IPv6 address, applies it to the interface, and then > drops the old IPv6 addresses as they stale out. Sessions in use or not. Isn't the OS

Re: Bandwidth estimation question

One of our customers went from near zero traffic to requiring a 2Gbps bond over the course of a few days, so just another +1 that it can be in the Gbps range when one of your customers explodes, especially if it's a media rich site without CDN. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Tom Sands

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Friday, October 2, 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Why are some people here asserting that IPv6 failed when it looks like it > is actually taking off pretty good right now? > > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html > > Jan 2013 about 1% > Jan 2014 about

Re: Quick Update on the North American BCOP Efforts

> If NANOG isn't developing and publishing BCOPs, what's the point of > NANOG other than a mailing list? what more point do you need? it has been a very successful and useful mailing list for a few decades. ripe has been the ops document repo since before this mailing list existed. it works

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

>> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between >> an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host. > > i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows: > > "it was never possible to design a smooth transition and that's why we > gave up on it." > >

Bandwidth estimation question

I am trying to figure out if our hosting plan has enough bandwidth (currently at 15Mbps, our average webpage is 300kb). One of our members may win a peace prize for scientific work so there may be a media blitz. Does anyone know how much traffic a 'media blitz' (for lack of a better word)

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

> From: "Jürgen Jaritsch" > To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG" >> Stop using old shit. > Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue > works and you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade > networks. bingo!

Re: AW: /27 the new /24

A better truth may be that I have no idea about bureaucracies... which I'll happily admit to. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Jürgen Jaritsch"

Re: Bandwidth estimation question

There is no telling how big a flash crowd might be. I've see them jump in the Gbps range and not Mbps. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 2, 2015, at 10:06 PM, JoeSox wrote: > > I am trying to figure out if our hosting plan has enough bandwidth > (currently at 15Mbps, our

  1   2   >