Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/18/21 8:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has AT business internet and they were able to get a static /56 (For some reason, AT refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.) When I checked, there were NO options

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has AT business internet and they were able to get a static /56 (For some reason, AT refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.) If it turns out they won’t do PTR or more likely NS for our ip6.arpa zone, then

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 13:25 , John R. Levine wrote: > >> As you noted John, its the plethora of software, support systems, tooling, >> and most important in many environments - legacy customer management and >> provisioning systems that can be the limiting factor. ... > > Just looking around

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 12:34 , Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM John Levine > wrote: > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG > said: > >> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 11:37 , John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG said: >>> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I >>> expect these companies all have plans >> to support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

According to Mark Andrews : >It tells you that AT don’t treat IPv6 on equal footing to IPv4 and nothing >more. Indeed but since AT is about 1/4 of the US broadband market, and our screwed up telco politics means there is often no practical competitor available, that's a big problem. R's,

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

It tells you that AT don’t treat IPv6 on equal footing to IPv4 and nothing more. There is nothing at the protocol level stopping AT offering a similar level of service. Don’t equate poor implementation with the protocol being broken. -- Mark Andrews > On 19 Sep 2021, at 07:19, Stephen

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

Also, I realise I'm kinda taking your comment out of context and jumping on it to harp on my favorite pet peeve, so, yeah, sorry about that. --TimH On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:28:02 -0700 Tim Howe wrote: > On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 21:15:00 -0700 > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > Unless their

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

I mostly agree with this. Even new hardware like eero doesn't do v6 by default. It's just off. So many things are like this. It's nice that LTE and other deployments have v6 by default. Last time I knew providers like t mobile are great but their MVNOs like Ultra Mobile do not do v6. All this

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

I concur that the problem is not a routing hardware problem. It's a perception problem with the various ISPs. I have fiber service with AT My little server farm endpoints all have IPv6 addresses, including the edge router. I also have a plan to allocate IPv6 addresses to my LAN devices,

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 21:15:00 -0700 Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and > software pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of adding IPv6 to > their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such as > Akamai. Owen, I have

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

As you noted John, its the plethora of software, support systems, tooling, and most important in many environments - legacy customer management and provisioning systems that can be the limiting factor. ... Just looking around my office, I have a Cisco SPA112 two-port ATA. It's been

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG said: > >> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. > I expect these companies all have plans > >to support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced all >

Re: (Free)RADIUS Front-End

Hi Mark, DMA Radius manager[1] runs freeradius in its backend and it does have nice frontend controls with lots of plug and play options. Regards [1] https://dmasoftlab.com/ Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos Every word has consequences. Every silence does too! On Fri, 17 Sep

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG said: >> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I >> expect these companies all have plans >to support v6 eventually, someday, once they're retired and replaced all of >the old junk that handles v6 poorly or >not at all, but

Re: (Free)RADIUS Front-End

On 9/17/21 23:20, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Hi Mark, DMA Radius manager[1] runs freeradius in its backend and it does have nice frontend controls with lots of plug and play options. Regards [1] https://dmasoftlab.com/ Thanks, Seun. This looks very good. Mark.

Re: (Free)RADIUS Front-End

On 9/17/21 19:36, Phil Lavin wrote: It’s a very large hammer for the small nut you have to crack, but Zentyal (https://zentyal.com/community/ ) is worth a look. It’s a complete Linux OS that aims to provide a compatible alternative to MS Active Directory.

Re: (Free)RADIUS Front-End

On 9/17/21 19:26, Tyler Conrad wrote: +1 for Packetfence, was just typing up a reply about it. I've used it for both standard dot1x as well as guest wired/wireless. Thanks, Tyler. My use-case is really for broadband subscriber management. Let me ping them and see what we can work out.

Re: (Free)RADIUS Front-End

On 9/17/21 19:25, Neil Hanlon wrote: and I need more coffee... PacketFenCe *sigh* https://www.packetfence.org/ Thanks, Neil. Let me reach out. Mark.