software!
> https://www.gofundme.com/savewifi
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Kriewitz
> <frede...@kriewitz.eu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Jim Burwell <j...@jsbc.cc> wrote:
>>> 2) What are the most common ways of managing the r
On 2015-11-20 15:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell <j...@jsbc.cc> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have a simple couple of questions here.
>>
>> In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
>>
Hi,
Have a simple couple of questions here.
In my admittedly cursory glances over the DHCPv6 RFCs, I don't see any
reference to the protocol having any role in managing the routing of
prefixes it delegates. Perhaps I missed it, but I somewhat expected the
omission of this responsibility would
Congrats to you and your team John!
I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress?
- Jim
On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote:
FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
Can't seem to get to 92.43.96.0/21 (specifically 92.43.96.130 ... in
Salzburg Austria) from Comcast Business in the Bay Area (traceroute
stops close to provider edge).
Works from Verizon FiOS down in LA, and a HE.net host in Fremont.
Comcast folks may want to look at this. :-)
- Jim
On 6/1/2012 11:06, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/1/12 7:04 AM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
Jimmy,
Trust me, I work for Comcast and run the IPv6 program. This has been the
case for nearly 7 years. We can take some of the items below off list.
We have launched IPv6 for residential broadband at this
On 6/1/2012 12:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:06:24AM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/1/12 7:04 AM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
Jimmy,
Trust me, I work for Comcast and run the IPv6 program. This has been the
case for nearly 7 years. We can take some of the items below off
On 11/9/2011 08:58, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 11/9/11 11:54 AM, Blake T. Pfankuchbl...@pfankuch.me wrote:
This appears directed at the Home market. Any word on the Business Class
market even as a /128?
Business Class is coming later. It won't hurt to contact the Business
Class sales
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/19/2010 11:58, Dan White wrote:
You should be using 192.168.2.0 for documented examples,or at least
private
space. Configs like this tend to get cut and pasted into routers and
get
changed only when they don't work.
Should that be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/7/2010 22:53, Peter Beckman wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but some folks might get support calls...
http://وزارة-الأتصالات.مصر/
That actually looks quite handsome. :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/26/2010 03:36, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
I fail to see how link local is any more difficult than any
other IPv6 address.
They're different because you have to know your local network
interface name
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/23/2010 05:42, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:26 UTC, Steve Bertrand
st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
- in WHOIS, I have ns1 and ns2.onlyv6.com listed as the
authoritative name servers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/23/2010 06:17, Clue Store wrote:
But none of this does what NAT does for a big enterprise, which
is to *hide internal topology*. Yes, addressing the privacy
concerns that come from using
lower-64-bits-derived-from-MAC-address is required,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC
picks up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new
outbound connection for anonymity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 22:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
On the other hand, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 22:18, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/21/2010 03:38, Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:16:10 -0700 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
wrote:
Frankly, when you hear people strongly using the argument
stateful firewalling == NAT, you start to wonder if they've
ever seen a
On 4/9/2010 15:42, Benjamin Billon wrote:
This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major
Chinese ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart?
It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. But in my case it can
work for a home server. You could adapt the list and
On 4/4/2010 08:46, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
Excerpts from John Peach's message of Sun Apr 04 08:17:28 -0700 2010:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:10:56 -0400
David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
There are some classical cases of assigning the same MAC address to every
machine in a batch,
On 4/4/2010 12:18, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
File transfer wasn't multihop
It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is
fuzzy on
On 4/4/2010 17:20, Barry Shein wrote:
I still believe that had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet
Union as the million other politicians who wish to take credit.
It's arguable that UUCP (and Usenet, email, etc that it carried) was
one of the most powerful forces for change in
On 4/4/2010 19:16, Mark Smith wrote:
-snip-
Actually the IEEE have never called it Ethernet, it's all been IEEE
802.3 / XXX{BASE|BROAD}-BLAH.
Ethernet, assuming version 1 and 2, strictly means thick coax, vampire
taps and AUI connectors running at (half-duplex) 10Mbps. I saw some of
it once.
On 4/2/2010 19:13, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Burwell [mailto:j...@jsbc.cc]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:00 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: legacy /8
So, jump through hoops to kludge up IPv4 so it continues to provide
address space
On 4/2/2010 21:23, Randy Bush wrote:
Anyway, I see it as pretty much moot, since many major players (Comcast,
Google, etc) are in the midst of major IPv6 deployments as we speak.
Eventually you will have to jump on the bandwagon too. :-)
clue0: the isp for which i work deployed ipv6 in
On 4/3/2010 01:03, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
It was thought that we would not have nearly so many people connected
to the internet. It was expected that most things connecting to the
internet would be minicomputers and mainframes.
It took some visionary and creative thinking
On 4/2/2010 17:22, Randy Bush wrote:
ipv4 spae is not 'running out.' the rirs are running out of a free
resource which they then rent to us. breaks my little black heart.
even if, and that's an if, ipv6 takes off, ipv4 is gonna be around for a
lng while. when 95% of the world has
On 4/1/2010 15:41, Joe Greco wrote:
Someone suggested this be posted more visibly.
... JG
LOL
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 3/10/2010 05:06, Andy Koch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:55, Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance--- My dual-stacked network and I are here.
So am I. But most IT people I
On 3/10/2010 16:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
IMHO, only personally experienced pain is going to push a lot of these
sorts of people into ipv6. By pain, I mean things such as not being
able to deploy their new service (web site, email server, VPN box,
whatever) on the internet due to lack of ipv4
On 3/5/2010 06:38, Cameron Byrne wrote:
There is one of other catch with NAT64 and IPv6-only. It breaks
communications with IPv4 literals. Now, you might says that IPv4
literals in URLs are very seldom well ... have a look at how
Akamai does a lot of their streaming. I just hope it does
On 1/26/2010 23:32, Mark Smith wrote:
A minor data point to this, Linux looks to be implementing the
subnet-router anycast address when IPv6 forwarding is enabled, as it's
specifying Solicited-Node multicast address membership for the
all zeros node address in it's MLD announcements when an
On 1/25/2010 20:06, Mark Smith wrote:
This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
trick? :-)
Hehe. Decimal - binary in your head? I
On 1/15/2010 23:45, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
Sorry for late response here...
On 1/14/2010 15:20, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Burwell j...@jsbc.cc
mailto:j...@jsbc.cc wrote:
On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote
Sorry for late response here...
On 1/14/2010 15:20, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Burwell j...@jsbc.cc wrote:
On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Folks,
My question to the community is: assuming a network based IPv6 to IP4
translator is in place
On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Folks,
My question to the community is: assuming a network based IPv6 to IP4
translator is in place (like NAT64 / DNS64), are IPv6-only Internet
services viable as a product today? In particular, would it be
appropriate for a 3G /smartphone or
On 1/6/2010 01:23, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jan 6, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
The closest I can come to a solution is to set a random password and flash
it using a front-panel LED using morse. grin
heh
No password at all, operator prompted at the console during
On 12/23/2009 13:03, Mike Leber wrote:
Marty Anstey wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with IPv6 training
courses.
A quick search turns up a few results on the subject, but it would be
handy to hear if anyone has any firsthand experiences or
recommendations.
We're
37 matches
Mail list logo
