On 1 Apr 2022, at 11:17, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> 4) EzIP proposes an overlay cyberspace with geographic flavor to restore
> the society infrastructure back to Pt. 2) above, while providing the daily
> services of Pt. 3). It essentially offers a parallel Internet for the
> peasants who
On 3/31/22 9:26 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
On Mar 31, 2022, at 20:51, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
the building has no
Owen DeLong via NANOG writes:
> Just because there is a small code snippet you found that prevents casting
> 240/4 as unicast on an interface doesn’t mean that removing that code will
> magically make 240/4 usable in the entire stack.
>
> [...]
>
> The code you found may just be a safety
Hi, Pascal:
1) " ... for the next version. ... ": I am not sure that I can
wait for so long, because I am asking for the basics. The reason that I
asked for an IP packet header example of your proposal is to visualize
what do you mean by the model of "realms and shafts in a multi-level
This is a complete aside, but still germane given todays date.
For the youngsters among us, the title of this RFC is a sarcastic homage to one
of the landmark computer papers of the 1960s: “Go To Statement Considered
Harmful“, by legendary computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra. Published to the
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 3:12 PM Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> If there's a bug in an ISP's implementation of RFC2549 carrier
> 'equipment', is that considered a software bug, hardware, or subject of
> ornithological research?
>
>
Certainly that would depend on what part of the pipeline was involved, no?
If there's a bug in an ISP's implementation of RFC2549 carrier 'equipment',
is that considered a software bug, hardware, or subject of ornithological
research?
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 10:40, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's super official now: no more software bugs in networking
I did an eval for some folks last Aug on Arista and 2 other vendors, one of
the others decided they didn't want to play the 3rd did.
Of the 3 Arista performed better/best. The test plan was shared with all 3
vendors prior to testing and it definitely push all this to and then past
their
I have a morbid curiosity what their CRM system looks like, and how many
entries are in it and what their internal notes/work flow looks like.
This opinion is formed from the external perspective of being a person who
is a very cold sales lead and yet continues to be occasionally called by a
new
Important note - Arista has 2 BGP implementations in the routing stack, old
(NH/ribd) that has been there since day 1 and newly written (I believe mostly
driven by EVPN development), when compared to other vendors - make sure to
compare with the new (modern code, highly multithreaded, cache
Hi, Christian:
0) Allow me following your "towers of babel world" metaphor to tell a
short story.
1) In the ancient days, peasants labored under the shadow of the
Tower, following the rules of and paid tax to the Lord living in the
Tower. In return, they expected protection from the
TL;DR: Yes, go ahead, they’re good, we like them.
I won’t say they’re perfect, but we’re using them at the edge (two of them in a
hybrid core/edge model right now, even!) and I would happily endorse them for
edge routers. Their BGP stack hasn’t put up any major roadblocks for us so far
(at
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On
> Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: DMARC ViolationAS21299 - 46.42.196.0/24 ASN prepending 255
> times
>
> [...]
> I think more and perhaps different knobs were and still are needed.
YES. YESYESYES.
Having
Hi all,
It's super official now: no more software bugs in networking gear.
Sorry it took so long to document what the best current practise is!
Kind regards,
Job / Chris / Remco
- Forwarded message from rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org -
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 10:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Whether its preparing for a natural disaster like a hurricane or a russian
invasion, proper advance planning makes a difference. The cellular network
operators and national regulator in Ukraine have been preparing for years.
"It must be kept in mind, that many of these changes could not
In Venezuela, asking for the wifi password can get you killed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/31/venezuela-army-yanomami-killing/
--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
On Mar 31, 2022, at 11:51 PM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative
>> domains.
>
> So, if an IPv6 prefix is assigned to an apartment building and
> the building has no logging mechanism on how addresses are
Makes sense, Abe, for the next version.
Note that the intention is NOT any to ANY. A native IPv6 IoT device can only
talk to another IPv6 device, where that other device may use a YATT address or
any other IPv6 address.
But it cannot talk to a YADA node. That’s what I mean by baby steps for
Hi, Pascal:
What I would appreciate is an IP packet header design/definition layout,
word-by-word, ideally in bit-map style, of an explicit presentation of
all IP addresses involved from one IoT in one realm to that in the
second realm. This will provide a clearer picture of how the real
Hello Ohta-san
> > - there's no way to know if 2 locations are OK (anycast)
>
> If you mean IPv6 anycast to allow 2 or more hosts sharing an anycast address,
> it is just broken not useful for any purpose and ignored.
One case I have in mind is when one wants to bundle multiple physical
Hi, Owen:
The EzIP addresses (the 240/4 netblock) are proposed to be treated as
"natural resources" without a price tag (or, "free") following the
old-fashioned PSTN discipline, instead of "personal properties" for
auction according to the current Internet way.
Regards,
Abe (2022-04-01
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:
- Stateful NATs the size of the Internet not doable,
Stateful NATs are necessary only near leaf edges of ISPs
for hundreds of customers or, may be, a little more
than that and is doable.
If you make the stateful NATs static, that is, each
private
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
You can't expect people still working primarily on v6 have much
sense of engineering.
That includes me
Sorry for confusion. I mean "people still working primarily on v6"
are people who insist on IPv6 and ND as is, because any required
repair on it would
I had no idea that actually went through. That makes my morning much better
knowing someone saw it hahaha. I'm all in on v6.
Thank you,
-- Ryland
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 6:59:19 AM
To: Owen DeLong ; Ryland Kremeier
Cc: Philip
Actually, Owen, now the day has come, I can say I love it.
No one likes tradeoffs. No one wants to compromise.
Ryland just told us we have a near perfect title for a spec that is bound to be
hated.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: mercredi 30 mars 2022 22:33
To: Ryland Kremeier
There are 2 ways to stop a war:
1) one side it utterly defeated and disaggregated
2) both sides suffered enough and agree to start thinking of the best terms for
coexistence
1) is not close to happening any time soon
From this, the conclusion is that we have not suffered enough.
On the side,
For the sake of it, Justin, I just published
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-v6ops-yada-yatt/.
The first section of the draft (YADA) extends IPv4 range in an IPv4-only world.
For some people that might be enough and I’m totally fine with that.
Keep safe;
Pascal
From: NANOG On
He he, why do you think YADA starts with yet another?
The devil is in the details I guess. AA makes A twice longer, that's the easy
piece. But then, what is the story for the A->AA transition?
The key piece the concept of the shaft, that enables to transit AA between
levels while seeing plain
> Are you ready for that, or should we wait another 80 years with dual stack
> and gigantic stateful NATs?
That's what this network is going to do:
https://www.aa.net.uk/etc/news/ipv6-end-of-trial/
There is something odd about the day this was published, though.
Rubens
A very long thread.
Face it: everyone is right, and even technically correct. There's no good and
evil. We'd know, after 20 years.
I live in France and my country has a famous 100-years war in its long history
with England. Do we want to beat this here?
The plain truth:
- IPv4 is here to
Owen DeLong wrote:
It still suffers from a certain amount of opacity across administrative domains.
is the corner case.
Obviously, if the apartment complex has no log files, then yes, it remains
relatively useless
It is completely useless for the opacity required by police.
In your one
Mark Andrews wrote:
Write down what you find is broken and report it.
According to your logic, it is a lot more constructive
to write down what we find are broken with IPv6 and
report it to IETF, which will make IETF obsolete IPv6.
Masataka Ohta
On 31/03/2022 23:15, Bill Woodcock wrote:
…in a run-of-the-mill web hoster?
This is really a question specifically for folks with web-site-hosting
businesses.
If you had, say, ten million web site customers, each with their own unique
domain name, how many IPv4 addresses would you think was
>
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
> > You're perfectly correct. This is exactly what the registration would
> > be for. I'm concerned about its adoption that I do not see coming on
> > Wi-Fi/ Ethernet, even for v6 (SLAAC) where the problem is a lot
> > worse*.
>
> You can't expect people
35 matches
Mail list logo
