I'm beginning to wonder if the internet will survive the ipv6 adoption
debates.
Here's the real problem which you all can promptly ignore:
The IETF et al are full of bright technical people who can design
protocols, packet formats, etc.
But many of the major problems facing the internet are
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 11:30 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Given the draft lies about the status of 127/8. Words have meanings.
>
>When all of 127.0.0.0/8 was reserved for loopback addressing, IPv4
>addresses were not yet recognized as scarce. Today, there is no
>justification for
Given the draft lies about the status of 127/8. Words have meanings.
When all of 127.0.0.0/8 was reserved for loopback addressing, IPv4
addresses were not yet recognized as scarce. Today, there is no
justification for allocating 1/256 of all IPv4 addresses for this
purpose, when
One thing is for certain… If folks had put 0.10 as much effort into deploying
IPv6 as has been put into arguing about whether or not ~17 /8s worth of IPv4
makes a meaningful difference to the internet as a whole, IPv4 would long since
have become irrelevant as it must eventually be.
Owen
>
John R. Levine writes:
> This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse
> 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea.
I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn that it's actually 127/8
minus 127/16.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127/
That's
John Levine writes:
> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea.
As people will be aware, we have a different draft on this issue, so
I'm also going to pipe up here.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240/
(Our draft offers no specific plan for
The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time where
there is some forcing event that requires it to be.
Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy coming up
with ways to squeeze the blood out of v4 that could have been used to get
v6 going instead.
I
John Levine wrote:
Oh, absolutely. I have conversations with my hosting provider in which
they tell me that nobody has ever asked for IPv6 other than me, and they
had no idea their upstream (Spectrum) had native IPv6. So I keep using
a tunnel.
Why do you think you need IPv6?
What is the
On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 19:25 -0500, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>
> The only way IPv6 will ever be ubiquitous is if there comes a time
> where there is some forcing event that requires it to be.
>
> Unless that occurs, people will continue to spend time and energy
> coming up with ways to squeeze the
On 8 Mar 2022 19:14:34 -0500
"John Levine" wrote:
> I have conversations with my hosting provider in which they tell me
> that nobody has ever asked for IPv6 other than me,
Oh you too? I got that response all the time. Then I when I press,
they usually say they've had one, two, three, maybe
On 3/8/22 4:32 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
Don't need to break phone to tower encryption when the vast majority
of the call pathway is not encrypted.
If it's VoLTE I assume it would be sips:
Mike
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:59 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
Hi, I was reading an article on why
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Michael Thomas wrote:
Hi, I was reading an article on why Russia hasn't taken out Ukraine's mobile
networks and one of the premises was that they could use it to eavesdrop on
calls.
During World War I, the British Empire did this. It strategically cut
telegraph cables
Don't need to break phone to tower encryption when the vast majority of the
call pathway is not encrypted.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:59 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Hi, I was reading an article on why Russia hasn't taken out Ukraine's
> mobile networks and one of the premises was that they
>
> Is it not past time we admit that we have no real idea what the
> schedule or level of effort will be for making IPv6 ubiquitous? This
> year it was more than last year and next year it'll probably be more
> than this year. The more precise predictions all seem to have fallen
> flat.
>
The
It appears that William Herrin said:
>On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote:
>> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be
>> useful it would require
>> that every host on the Internet update its network stack,
>
>Hi John,
>
>That's incorrect and
Upwork != NANOG
- Brian
> On Mar 8, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Callan Banner wrote:
>
> Nanog to suspend work in Belarus and Russia. How do you all feel about this?
> Senseless antagonization or correctly applied pressure?
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Hayden Brown, Upwork
On 3/8/22 13:22, Callan Banner wrote:
Nanog to suspend work in Belarus and Russia.
What work does the North American NOG presently do in Belarus and Russia?
--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
On 3/8/22 2:17 PM, Brandon Svec wrote:
I also read that the Russian military is depending on the
mobile network for some (much?) of their own communication which isn't
that surprising if the stories about their general ineptness are to be
believed. Maybe the reverse is happening and Ukraine
I also read that the Russian military is depending on the mobile network
for some (much?) of their own communication which isn't that surprising if
the stories about their general ineptness are to be believed. Maybe the
reverse is happening and Ukraine and allies are listening in on Russian
On 2022-03-08 2:58 p.m., Michael Thomas wrote:
Hi, I was reading an article on why Russia hasn't taken out Ukraine's
mobile networks and one of the premises was that they could use it to
eavesdrop on calls. Depending on how old their infrastructure is, that
doesn't make sense as I would
Hi, I was reading an article on why Russia hasn't taken out Ukraine's
mobile networks and one of the premises was that they could use it to
eavesdrop on calls. Depending on how old their infrastructure is, that
doesn't make sense as I would assume that along with e2e SIP that they'd
be
How is this related to NANOG?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Callan Banner"
To: "nanog@nanog.org list"
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 3:22:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Upwork Suspending
Nanog to suspend work in Belarus and Russia. How do you all feel about
this? Senseless antagonization or correctly applied pressure?
-- Forwarded message -
From: Hayden Brown, Upwork President & CEO
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:51 PM
Subject: Upwork Suspending Operations in
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 12:34 PM John Levine wrote:
> FWIW, I also don't think that repurposing 240/4 is a good idea. To be useful
> it would require
> that every host on the Internet update its network stack,
Hi John,
That's incorrect and obviously so. While repurposing 240/4 as general
It appears that Anne Mitchell said:
>> Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner ,
>> "Karandikar, Abhay" , Rama Ati
>, Bob Corner GMAIL , "Hsing, T.
>Russell" , "Chen, Henry C.J."
>, ST Hsieh , "Chen, Abraham Y."
>
>>
>
>This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list.
> One
In response to feedback from operational security communities,
CAIDA's source address validation measurement project
(https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly
reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which
we received packets with a spoofed source address.
> Cc: NANOG , Greg Skinner ,
> "Karandikar, Abhay" , Rama Ati ,
> Bob Corner GMAIL , "Hsing, T. Russell"
> , "Chen, Henry C.J." , ST Hsieh
> , "Chen, Abraham Y."
>
This is a whole lot of cc:s to people who aren't even part of this group/list.
One wonders with this many cc:s, how many
Hi, Tom:
0) Thanks to your thoughts.
1) First, logistics: Since this was my first post to this Forum, I
got an auto-response stating that my post was being moderated. Then, I
got your message even before I received any follow-up notice from such,
nor my writing being published. Are you
I recall reading the IETF draft some time ago. It seemed like an overly
convoluted mechanism to tunnel 240/4.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 8:50 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> 0)I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited our
> work on the 240/4 NetBlock,
Precedent?
https://blog.codinghorror.com/revisiting-the-black-sunday-hack/
Dear Colleagues:
0) I was made aware of a recent discussion on this Forum that cited
our work on the 240/4 NetBlock, nicknamed EzIP (Phonetic for Easy IPv4).
(Please see, at the end of this MSG, the URL to the discussion and the
highlighted text where the citation was made.)
1) As the
Hi Walt,
try to send an email to n...@fastweb.it
Regards,
-
Marco Paesani
Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: ma...@paesani.it
Il giorno mar 8 mar 2022 alle ore 11:04 Walt ha scritto:
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Walt
>
Thanks
Walt
33 matches
Mail list logo
