On 4/12/16, 9:22 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Tim Jackson"
wrote:
>>> (Broadcom chipset,
>> approach with caution).
>
>QFX5100 works fine for MPLS.. [snip] QFX5100 is a
>great P and lightweight PE..
WG] For some values of "fine" and
On 1/4/16, 11:54 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Neil Harris"
wrote:
>I can only imagine the scale of the schadenfreude IPv6 proponents will
>be able to feel once they're able to start talking about IPv4 as a
>legacy protocol.
*start*?
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
From: Cryptographrix <cryptograph...@gmail.com<mailto:cryptograph...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.geo...@twcable.com<mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org&
On 9/1/15, 1:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Roland Dobbins"
wrote:
>It should've already been spent for an OOB/DCN network, which should've
>been provisioned with flow telemetry in mind.
I'm going to interpret that "should" in the same way
On 7/10/15, 6:34 AM, NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that DHCPv6-PD is not intelligent enough. Yes there
is a provision such that the user CPE could give a hint of how much space
is want, but no, it
On 6/9/15, 11:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
No, the premise is that from a user's point of view, DHCPv6-only networks
cause regressions in functionality compared to IPv4-only or dual-stack
networks. For example: IPv4 apps cannot be supported at all due because
464xlat cannot
On 6/10/15, 2:32 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other
standard to define a minimum value for N, but I fear that it may not
possible to gain consensus on that.
WG] No, I think that the document you need to write is the one
On 6/9/15, 11:06 PM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote:
Based on the facts, you could could just as well say that Apple is trying
to advance the state of the art by refusing to provide suboptimal 464xlat
and insisting instead that developers support IPv6-only networks as
first-class
On 6/10/15, 9:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote:
What standard exactly requires my router to be able to snoop a DHCP-PD to
create routes dynamically? That was left out and one solution is the one
we
use.
WG] We use this in cable-land, so it's definitely documented in the
From: Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.commailto:lore...@colitti.com
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM
To: George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.commailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6
I don't think
From: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.commailto:ted.i...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 6:09 PM
To: George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.commailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com
Cc: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.usmailto:do...@dougbarton.us,
nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
nanog
On 6/10/15, 5:27 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
... and this argument has been refuted by the word bridging.
To repeat Valdis' question:
And the router knows to send to the front address to reach the back
address, how, exactly? Seems like somebody should invent a way to
assign a
On 5/31/15, 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
if they said “We have a plan, and it will take X amount of time”, I would
respect that.
If they said “We have a plan and we’re not sure how long it will take”, I
would continue to poke
them about sooner is better than later and having a
On 3/12/15, 7:48 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Then, just like the RFCs, maintain the BCOP appeal numbering as a
sequential monotonically increasing number and make the BCOP editor
responsible for updating the index with the publishing of each new or
revised BCOP.
Note, IMHO, a revised
On 2/19/15, 2:27 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
Getting IPv6 support in LDP is one thing.
This is one document that we need to keep track to know what MPLS
applications currently running off of LDPv4 still need to be ported to
run over LDPv6:
We've seen 3 or 4 recent presentations of some new measurement project
that requires deploying yet another set of dedicated probes. While I'm
generally supportive of measurement attempts, I'll ask the same question
that was asked then:
Why not use RIPE Atlas?
https://atlas.ripe.net/docs/udm/
On 12/12/14, 1:33 AM, Javier J jav...@advancedmachines.us wrote:
What stops someone from going down to the center of town, launching a
little wifi SSID named xfinitywifi and collecting your customers usernames
and passwords?
WG] nothing. But then again, the same argument can be made for *any*
On 12/11/14, 1:43 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
BTW, it isn't just the electricity, but also climate control and
location which the subscriber provides for free. Comcast need not rent
space on poles and need not buy more expensive weatherized equipment
that goes
On 12/11/14, 3:58 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Alas, I cannot accept George's assertion
WG] well, perhaps you can accept Wes's assertion instead. ;-)
In residential areas (non-multi-unit),
this is only going to help out *Comcast subscribers*. If you have random
visitors over, it
On 12/4/14, 10:35 AM, Andrew Gallo akg1...@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, that's what I'm trying to figure out as well. In my informal
conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the agreement, said 'no,
we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific legal feedback isn't
making it back to
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
All the specific legal feedback I’ve heard is that this is a
liability
nightmare, and that everyone wants ARIN to take on all the
liability, but
nobody wants to pay for it.
WG] Has there been any actual discussion
On 12/4/14, 1:13 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
I am happy to champion the change that you seek (i.e. will get it
reviewed
by legal and brought before the ARIN Board) but still need clarity on
what
change you wish to occur -
A) Implicit binding to the indemnification/warrant
On 12/4/14, 1:34 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
I’ve asked a lot of people, “Would you be willing to pay ARIN for RPKI
services,” and the answer has always been “no.” Until I get a “yes,”
it’s hard to put a number (other than zero) on how the market values
RPKI.
WG] well, if it wasn't
On 12/4/14, 2:34 PM, Andrew Gallo akg1...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that the SIDR work going on in the IETF takes the
registries out of the real-time processing of route
authentication/attestation?
WG] no, but they're at least discussing ways of making the dependencies
less
On 12/4/14, 2:19 PM, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote:
Which begs the question for me -- ARIN already operates services that
operators rely upon. Why are they different? Does ARIN run no risk of
litigation due to some perceived involvement of those services in
someone's operational
if anyone has a live-person contact at geolocation provider IPligence
(http://www.ipligence.com/) and can hit me up off-list, I would appreciate
it.
Thanks,
Wesley George
Time Warner Cable
Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
On 8/28/14, 11:28 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
The long term solution is to deploy RPKI and only use
transits which use RPKI. No RPKI support = no business.
Additionally make RPKI a peering requirement.
WG] So should we ask for that before, or after we get everyone
On 8/29/14, 9:08 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
considering that measured rpki registration (which has a very tragic
side) is ten time ipv6 penetration, i think we ask for rpki first.
WG] I guess I should know better than to ask rhetorical questions on
NANOG, lest I get an answer.
The
I am not cleared to give further details, but in the hopes of providing a
little more accurate info, I can point you at the following blog post
http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2014/08/twc-identifies-cause-of-internet-ou
tage/
Thanks,
Wes George
Anything below this line has been added by my
On 6/21/14, 3:20 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Donley said that Cablelabs moved to a new hosting provider that (at that
time) did not support IPv6.
Www.cablelabs.com does have a , it's just that cablelabs.com doesn't.
Unfortunately all too common. We're also leaning on them to be
On 6/18/14, 12:31 PM, Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com wrote:
I guess my question is, is it best practice to confederate or use a route
reflector
Basically I want to know what an ISP would do, not a test in a LAB.
One data point that you may find useful: If you find out later that you’ve
On 6/18/14, 4:09 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Now, consider DVRs, BluRay players, Receiver/Amplifiers, Televisions,
etc. where there are, currently, no IPv6 capable choices available to
the best of my knowledge.
I think this thread exemplifies a problem among the IPv6 early adopters
On 5/12/14, 10:07 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/.
I’ll note that this is less than 140 chars, and therefore fits nicely in a
tweet.
If you’re on twitter, Signal boost the PSA, please.
My edited example: https://twitter.com/wesgeorge/status/435404354242478080
Wes George
On 2/16/14, 10:03 PM, Kate Gerry k...@quadranet.com wrote:
add these to
On 1/7/14, 11:10 PM, Adam Rothschild a...@latency.net wrote:
I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the
ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec
code ...
Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ
pushed a software
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
They suggest that IPv4 support is needed *in conjunction with* IPv6
support for 5-8 years.
That's a long time if you're developing software... so, basically, no...
no cost or effort saving if you were to do this work today. In fact, 2x
the
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/17/3655442/restoring-verizon-service-m
anhattan-hurricane-sandy
hey lookie! 'free uprades'!
[WEG] Better that than we're going to replace all of this old technology with
exactly the same stuff
From: Wessels, Duane [mailto:dwess...@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
The brief problem in accessing www.nanog.org was due to numerous
parallel
downloads of a large video file by a single source IP address. We have
no
o no hotel believe that we'll actually be significantly high use.
they simply can not conceive of it. ietf, apricot, ... have
seen this time and time again
WEG] this is a problem that is quite solvable via the careful application of
real data from past events
I assume most of these
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:06 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
- Original Message -
From: Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com
To be clear, FOX screwed
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:06 PM
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
addresses or BGP?
[WES] Because in most
This would be another alternative:
http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
Slightly more than 1 line, but the loose case would nuke a few more things than
just filtering on 2000::/3 without requiring frequent updates. The strict case
requires keeping after it for updates, and you'd
We've done it both ways.
We've found that there are sometimes issues with announcing IPv6 NLRI over IPv4
BGP sessions depending on your chosen vendor and code version on both sides of
the session. Specifically, we have seen some implementations where an
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address (usually the
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:19 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 enabled carriers?
On 3/10/10 11:00 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Does anyone have a list of carriers who are IPv6 capable today?
snip
Sprint wasn't
45 matches
Mail list logo