Depends what size block is being traded. Prices for /16 and larger have been flat since 2021.One thing is for sure: the cost for any size block has not dropped back to 2013 levels.Consider also that providers are starting to pass the charges onto their customers, like $DAYJOB-1 (an NSP) and now
On 2/15/24 9:40 PM, Justin Streiner wrote:
The Internet edge and core portion of deploying IPv6 - dual-stack or
otherwise - is fairly easy. I led efforts to do this at a large .edu
starting in 2010/11. The biggest hurdles are/were/might still be:
1. Coming up with a good address plan that will
The Internet edge and core portion of deploying IPv6 - dual-stack or
otherwise - is fairly easy. I led efforts to do this at a large .edu
starting in 2010/11. The biggest hurdles are/were/might still be:
1. Coming up with a good address plan that will do what you want and scale
as needed. It
It appears that Stephen Satchell said:
>Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail
>servers on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses. OK. I have a
>mail server, which has been on the Internet for decades. On IPv4.
>
>For the last four years, every attempt to get
$/IPv4 address peaked in 2021, and has been declining since.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 16:05 Brian Knight via NANOG
wrote:
> On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
> >
> > The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> >
On 2024-02-15 13:10, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.
As
Well all that shows is that your ISP is obstructionist. If they can can enter
a PTR record or delegate the reverse range to you for your IPv4 server they can
do it for your IPv6 addresses. In most cases it is actually easier as address
space is assigned on nibble boundaries (/48, /52, /56,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:25:03 -0800
Stephen Satchell wrote:
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> > The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
> > addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
> > is solving the problem right now.
For everyone’s amusement:
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv6' maillog | wc -l
2648
[root@owen log]# grep 'IPv4' maillog | wc -l
0
Now admittedly, this isn’t really a fair report because sendmail doesn’t tag
IPv4 address as “IPv4” like it does IPv6 addresses.
e.g.: Feb 15 19:22:59 owen
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:10 AM Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM)
wrote:
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
>
> The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
> Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
>
> If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
Tom,
The solution is easy, just have a dual-stack MX record.
$ host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has address 172.253.115.26
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2607:f8b0:4004:c06::1a
Servers using IPv6 connect to IPv6 as needed.
Matthew
On 2/14/2024 9:26 PM,
On 2/12/24 06:16, mehmet at akcin.net (Mehmet) wrote:
Hey there
Is it possible to connect Any2 IX from Equinix LA?
Yes, its possible but might not make financial sense.
You will need a connection from Equinix Los Angeles (any of their 7
datacenters) over to any of CoreSite's datacenters
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
The only thing stopping global IPv6 deployment is
Netflix continuing to offer services over IPv4.
If Netflix dropped IPv4, you would see IPv6 available *everywhere*
within a month.
--lyndon
> > How many legacy mail clients can handle IPv6?
I would suspect all of them, since MUAs, by definition, are not
involved in any mail transport operations. But if you're thinking
of MUAs that use Submission, they are unlikely to care one whit
what the underlying transport is. You configure a
From: Tom Beecher
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:53 AM
To: Howard, Lee
Cc: Warren Kumari ; nanog
Subject: Re: NANOG 90 Attendance?
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links
and attachments.
Maybe this should have gone to the members mailing
Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail
servers on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses. OK. I have a
mail server, which has been on the Internet for decades. On IPv4.
For the last four years, every attempt to get a PTR record in ip6.arpa
from my ISP has
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to
> how you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous
> times" and that we "continue to persist".
This may be the first time your group has presented your opinions on 240/4,
but you are not the
> On Feb 15, 2024, at 03:29, Christopher Hawker wrote:
>
>
> Owen,
>
> This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how
> you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times"
> and that we "continue to persist".
>
It may be your first
> Maybe this should have gone to the members mailing list, but I couldn’t
> find one.
>
>
>
memb...@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:31 AM Howard, Lee via NANOG
wrote:
> I’m jumping on an earlier part of the thread.
>
>
>
> Based on what I heard at the Members Meeting and several follow up
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 18:25, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
>> The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
>> addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
>> is solving the problem right now.
There is one other mechanism available that has not yet come into play. One
which this proposal seeks to further delay. In fact IMHO, the one that is most
likely to ultimately succeed…
At some point new entrants will be unable to obtain IPv4. When there is a
sufficient critical mass of those
I'm jumping on an earlier part of the thread.
Based on what I heard at the Members Meeting and several follow up hallway
conversations, I think:
* NANOG needs a focus group on attendees. A survey won't do it, we need a
deep dive into roles, interests, career level, and why they attend.
*
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 3:08 AM Christopher Hawker wrote:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge
> onto the internet, without potentially having to fork
> out substantial amounts of money.
Hi Chris,
I think that would be the worst possible use for 240/4. The last thing
new
Once upon a time, Christopher Hawker said:
> The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet,
> without potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.
There is a substatial amount of money involved in trying to make 240/4
usable on the Internet. Network
Owen,
This is the first time we've presented this case so I'm uncertain as to how
you've come to the conclusion that I've "presented [my] case numerous times"
and that we "continue to persist".
I also don't know how us diverting energy from 240/4 towards IPv6 deployment in
privately-owned
I attempted with as much nuance and humor as I could muster, to
explain and summarize the ipv4 exhaustion problem, and CGNAT, the
240/4 controversy as well as the need to continue making the IPv6
transition, on this podcast yesterday.
Hi Christian,
The idea to this is to allow new networks to emerge onto the internet, without
potentially having to fork out substantial amounts of money.
I am of the view that networks large enough to require more than a /8 v4 for a
private network, would be in the position to move towards
excuse top posting -
I don't see a case for shifting 240/4 into public IP space if it is just
going to sustain the rentier sinecures of the existing IPv4
incumbencies. In other words if RIRs don't use it boost new entrants it
will just add another knot to the stranglehold we are in vis IPv4.
I
28 matches
Mail list logo
