Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

ne and the same these days? > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > I bet if more people moved to clouds that have IPv6 support such as: > > Host Virtualvr.org <http://vr.org/> <h

Re: Netflix stuffing data on pipe

> Pete > > >> On 4/01/2016, at 8:42 pm, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> As I understand it, the problem being discussed is an oscillation that is >> created when the reaction occurs faster than the feedback resulting in a >> series of dynamically increasing overcompensations. >> >> Owen >

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> > > Add to that the fact that as we run closer to (or further into?) run-out, at > some point there's likely to be a rapid acceleration in v6 provisioning as > networks finally realize that they can't reasonably get any more v4 space or > their end-user customers finally begin to demand v6.

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said: >> Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so >> if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode >> you are describing in that case. > > Which only hel

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

It’s always fun when I open my mouth in public only to turn it into a learning experience. TL;DR version: Several enhancements to the script and to my PERL library to improve the accuracy were made. The now more accurate results aren’t very different. Details below: As a result of comments

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:21 , Damian Menscher <dam...@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > domain.name <http://domain.name/> results are 82 (16.4%) up from 69 (13.8%). &g

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 14:09 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:52:46 -0800, Damian Menscher said: > >> While I agree with your general sentiment about 3xx responses (often used >> to redirect example.com to www.example.com) I think your concerns about >> 8.8.8.8 are

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 13:21 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:59:40 -0800, Owen DeLong said: > >> These numbers might be slightly pessimistic because 3XX series responses are >> not counted as good. > > They may be a *lot* more than s

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 16:37 , Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hi, > >> We just need Google to announce that IPv6 enabled sites will get a slight >> bonus in search rankings. And just like that, there will suddenly be a >> business reason to implement IPv6. > > I already

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 17:01 , Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead >> of the new content, you get a

Re: Netflix stuffing data on pipe

As I understand it, the problem being discussed is an oscillation that is created when the reaction occurs faster than the feedback resulting in a series of dynamically increasing overcompensations. Owen > On Jan 3, 2016, at 21:26 , Justin Wilson wrote: > > Netflix is

Re: announcement of freerouter

In fairness, when I first looked at the page, I was confused too. It said it ran as a “Router OS Process” which made me think that it was somehow a virtual router that ran inside the Mikrotik operating system known as Router SO and I was scratching my head going: A: How can that possibly work?

Re: de-peering for security sake

ment agencies that may or may not be known to exist publicly. Owen > > Regards, > > Baldur > > > On 27 December 2015 at 03:37, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 15:54 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 11:26 , Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 1:59 PM, wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 05:35:19 +0100, Baldur Norddahl said: >> >>> SSH password + key file is accepted as two factor by PCI DSS auditors,

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:33 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 27 December 2015 at 22:08, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > This is a bit of a tangent, really. The discussion was about authe

Re: de-peering for security sake

> Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> > To: "Dan Hollis" <goe...@anime.net> > Cc: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>, "

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 08:14 , Joe Abley wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2015, at 10:09, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >> My gauge is volume of obnoxious traffic. When I get lots of SSH probes from >> a /32, I block the /32. > > ... without any knowledge of how many

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 12:50 , Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 08:14 , Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: &g

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 15:54 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 27 December 2015 at 00:11, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> No… You are missing the point. Guessing a private key is roughly >> equivalent to guessing a really

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 25, 2015, at 06:18 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > To the thread, not necessarily Daniel, if blocking countries\continents is a > bad thing (not saying I disagree), how do you deal with the flood of trash? > Just take it on the chin? Allowing hate speech is the price of

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 25, 2015, at 22:16 , Dan Hollis <goe...@anime.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Merely because people are asleep at the switch does not give those of us in >> a position to understand the consequences license to abuse our position. &g

Re: de-peering for security sake

I think that even in the US, a provider would want a more specific complaint than “The network abuses”. Owen > On Dec 25, 2015, at 12:40 , Colin Johnston wrote: > > been there, done that > 网络滥用 fix you ntp reflection servers :) > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 25 Dec

Re: de-peering for security sake

> On Dec 24, 2015, at 17:25 , Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 12/24/2015 04:50 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> Let’s just cut off the entirety of the third world instead of having >> a tangible mitigation plan in place. > > While you thing you are making a snarky response, it

Re: de-peering for security sake

Yes… Isn’t it impressive just how persistent the bad idea fairy can be? Owen > On Dec 24, 2015, at 19:25 , Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Hmm, has anyone at all kept count of the number of times such a discussion > has started up in just the last year, and how many

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you’re refusing to support IPv6 for those of us that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too. Owen > On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:08 , Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen De

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on your network? My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your particular religion about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it. When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation

Re: Nat

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> wrote: > > Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> writes: >>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> >>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits

Re: Nat

> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > There's nothing that can really be done about it now and I certainly wasn't > able to participate when these things were decided. > > However, keeping back 64 bits for the host was a stupid move from the > beginning.

Re: Nat

Not quite true… "What happens when we have to make an incompatible change to the fundamental packet header?” is the real challenge. It happens that in the case of IPv4, we didn’t hit that particular wall until we needed a larger address. In IPv6, it will probably be something related to the

Re: Nat

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 13:35 , Lee Howard wrote: > > > > On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" > wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market >> will get

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

> On Dec 10, 2015, at 17:49 , Jean-Francois Mezei > wrote: > > On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote: > >> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that >> would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

> On Dec 10, 2015, at 18:51 , Jean-Francois Mezei > wrote: > > On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote: > >> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer, >> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient. > > > If the

Re: IGF Mandate Renewl

t internet governance stuff. Sarcasm, right? Owen > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> The IGF is certainly preferable to moving this role into the ITU. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 07:37 , Steve M

Re: IGF Mandate Renewl

The IGF is certainly preferable to moving this role into the ITU. Owen > On Dec 7, 2015, at 07:37 , Steve Mikulasik wrote: > > The UN's Internet Governance Forum is up for renewal at the end of 2015, > without UN approval they will be shutdown. I am relatively new

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Dec 6, 2015, at 15:03 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+na...@panix.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:20:36PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> As an alternative worth considering, it could do this with BGP instead of >> OSPF. >> >> There’s

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Dec 6, 2015, at 08:45 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > On 6 December 2015 at 06:18, Mark Andrews wrote: > >>> Are you really suggesting that a residential ISP accept routes advertised >>> from their customer’s CPE? Really? >> >> PD is used

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

Admittedly, I may be biased, but even I am not sure in which direction. HE and Cogent have been in a pissing match over peering for a very long time. HE refuses to pay transit (which to me seems reasonable). Cogent refuses to peer with HE or pay transit. (The latter seeming reasonable to me, the

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 17:38 , Ryan Rawdon wrote: > > >> On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane >> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug. >> >>

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush wrote: > >> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the >> global v6 internet > > if A does not peer with B, > then for all A and B > they are evil partitioners? > > can we lower the rhetoric? > > randy Does

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 25, 2015, at 15:59 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message > , Brian > Knight writes: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl >> wrote: >>> >>> DHCPv6-PD allows

Re: Multi-core clamp on ammeter

The results I was able to find are not promising. The best I could come up with is to make use of this and some cobbling: https://moderndevice.com/new-products/current-sensor/ I have had good luck with other items from Modern Device, but

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:27 , Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > > In article you write: >> Unfortunately, PD is really still in its infancy in terms of development >> and real running code for complete implementations

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 13:51 , Miquel van Smoorenburg <mik...@xs4all.net> wrote: > > On 24/11/15 22:47, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:27 , Miquel van Smoorenburg <mik...@xs4all.net> >>> wrote: >>> In article <xs4all.85ac9398-125

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:53 , Tarko Tikan wrote: > > hey, > >> So I'd say there is equipment out there that works, as expected, but as >> seen in this thread, plenty of equipment that doesn't. > > Latest OpenWrt releases include https://github.com/sbyx/odhcpd as DHCPv4/6 >

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming >> partners >&g

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:27 , Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > In message <29055e3f-b923-4e21-8513-60cc8c14a...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong > writes: >> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:53 , Tarko Tikan <ta...@lanparty.ee> wrote: >>&

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP >> to deliver their strea

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing. Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty reasonable. Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. In fact, it looks to me like the bare minimum of

Re: bad announcement taxonomy

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 07:07 , t...@pelican.org wrote: > > On Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:05, "Jared Mauch" > said: > >> Did someone say NAT? >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8 > > Now *that's* how to make my Friday afternoon! You, sir, win the

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since UDP is stateless. Owen > On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik wrote: > > That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who > wrote this understands what UDP

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Unlimited data plan is $30/mo. Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and data rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion, oversubscription, etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a year now. The

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 13:35 , Jim Burwell wrote: > > 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.

Re: DHCPv6 PD & Routing Questions

> 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 DH

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 00:21 , Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2015, at 13:36, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > >> With regards to VPNs: while they may not be very well known in the USA, they >> are outside the USA where many people need VPNs to access foreign content >>

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 03:11 , Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2015, at 16:05, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Lots of VPN services out there like the ones mentioned earlier in the thread >> have made it nearly as simple to install and opera

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 21:28 , Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2015, at 11:32, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Go out onto the street and ask a random number of people over 30 if they >> know what a URL is and how to enter one into a browser.

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 04:34 , Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2015, at 19:07, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> The point you seem to be missing is that your “until…” is already met. > > Not AFAICT. It isn't a default in the OS and on the window m

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> > And it may only take a secondary use case to reach critical mass. People I > know who use WhatsApp seem to have started using it to avoid per-text > charges, not to get end-to-end encrypted messaging. But now, even if > Facebook's estimate [2] of 450 million WhatsApp users is 90% inflated,

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 21:29 , John Levine wrote: > >>> Redirecting is much harder -- ... > >> If you know that the client is using ONLY your resolver(s), couldn’t you >> simply fake the entire chain and sign everything yourself? > > I suppose, although doing that at scale in a

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 19:09 , Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2015, at 10:02, John Levine wrote: > >> People in New Zealand said differently. > > This is a corner-case, however. Is it really a corner-case, or, is it the first representation of a group of ordinary

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 19:27 , Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> wrote: > > On 14 Nov 2015, at 10:22, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Surely time will tell, but I would not be so quick to dismiss this as a >> potential workaround after watching how quickly TOR was ad

Re: DNSSEC and ISPs faking DNS responses

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 20:50 , John Levine wrote: > > In article <56455885.8090...@vaxination.ca> you write: >> The Québec government is wanting to pass a law that will force ISPs to >> block and/or redirect certain sites it doesn't like. (namely sites that >> offer on-line

Re: CIDR Utilization

The results appear to be missing 192.168.0.0/32. Is this intended behavior? 192.168.0.8/27 is not a valid CIDR — It actually represents an address within 192.168.0.0/27, so actually, rather than missing 192.168.0.0/32, one could argue that there are erroneous reports for 192.168.0.2/31,

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://afrikaimage.com/pleased.php?qig> Owen DeLong

Re: Android lack of DHCPv6 purchasing decisions?

If your enterprise depends on DHCPv6 for a variety of NAC or other related things, then it’s not so absurd to prohibit a platform that fails to support it. OTOH, Apple refuses to implement 464Xlat, which (at least so far) means no IPv6 on T-Mo due to opposing brain damage on the T-Mo side. So

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://geomaticlub.com/nobody.php?yp3> Owen DeLong

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 00:46 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:46:47 -0500, Doug McIntyre said: > >> I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where OSX >> generates a new random IPv6 address, applies it to the interface, and then >> drops the old IPv6

Re: IPv6 Irony.

Getting IPv6 to the masses without giving them the ability to get their IPv6 problems resolved seems not like a long-tail issue so much as a really poor choice of deployment plans. Just my $0.02. Owen > On Oct 12, 2015, at 20:17 , Ca By wrote: > > On Monday, October 12,

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun wrote: > >> >> If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport >> circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Mike <mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com> wrote: > > On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over >> IPv6 it is that long ago. >>> It happens

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Mike wrote: > > > > On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >> Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of >> things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I >> do have an

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 10/04/2015 06:40 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote: >> Fully agree. But the current state of IPv6 outside "professional“ >> networks/devices is sincerely limited by a lot of poor CPE and >> consumer device implementations. >

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote: > >> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to >> support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. > > Go tell cisco that. IIRC, the first

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to > support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA. Not true. IPSec is recommended, not mandatory. This change was made in favor of

Re: Inexpensive probes for automated bandwidth testing purposes

They introduced themselves via SPAM recently… They’ve been plonked as a result. Owen > On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Brandon Ross wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Lorell Hathcock wrote: > >> I am running a DOCSIS network that has a noisy cable plant. I want to be >> able to

Re: /27 the new /24

Memory footprint is still an issue in lots of things like ESP8266 (which doesn’t yet support IPv6, but hopefully will soon). Not everything is a cell phone or larger. There are lots of cool new things coming out in the SoC world where you’ve got a micro controller, GPIOs, CAN, SPI, WiFi, and

Re: /27 the new /24

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> wrote: > > > >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that &

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

The majority of the large eyeball providers in the US are already doing this to most, if not all, of their customers. Comcast I believe has 100% IPv6 availability to residential and I think they are most of the way on Business too. I’m not sure of the percentage, but I know Time Warner Cable

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 07:56 , Brett A Mansfield > wrote: > > The problem with this is some of us smaller guys don't have the ability to > get IPv6 addresses from our upstream providers that don't support it. And > even if we did do dual stack, then we're paying

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

This still would have required updating every application, host, router, everything. Just as much work as deploying IPv6 without many of the benefits. No thanks, Owen > On Oct 2, 2015, at 14:18 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred)

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 13:45 , Todd Underwood <toddun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between >> an IPv4-only host and an

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Yes… This is a problem the ARIN board needs to fix post haste, but that’s not justification, that’s cost. Owen > On Oct 2, 2015, at 06:45 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > I may be able to justify it to ARIN, but I can't make a quadrupling of ARIN's > fees justifiable to me. > >

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 08:05 , Justin M. Streiner wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Rob McEwen wrote: > >> it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this >> statement might betray your premise. A site needing more than 1 address... >> subtly

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 07:48 , Cryptographrix wrote: > > For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from > providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers? > > Keep in mind that the net is now basically another broadcast medium. It really isn’t. If it

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

How do you figure that? Owen > On Oct 2, 2015, at 04:14 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange >

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 06:44 , Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 10/02/2015 12:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said: >> >>> Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is >>> delegated a /48, but then

Re: /27 the new /24

The race is on… One or more of these things will be the death of IPv4: 1. Not enough addresses 2. Routing Table Bloat due to one or more of: A. Traffic Engineering B. Stupid configuration C. Address

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 3, 2015, at 14:01 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Scott Morizot wrote: >> One of the points in having 64 bits reserved for the host >> portion of the address is that you never need to think or worry about >> individual

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Curtis > > On October 1, 2015 5:44:46 PM ADT, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 21:47 , Rob McEwen wrote: > > On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically >> a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6 >> addresses that causes this not

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 18:37 , Todd Underwood wrote: > > Either there are multiple translation systems that exist that were invented > late or there are not. Either Owen has never heard of any of them or he is > trolling. > > There are multiple translation systems and

Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 20:58 , Rob McEwen wrote: > > On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's >> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's >> still need to justify their address space

Re: Question re session hijacking in dual stack environments w/MacOS

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 22:46 , Doug McIntyre wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:23:59AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: >> On 26/Sep/15 16:34, David Hubbard wrote: >>> Has anyone run into this? Our users on other platforms don't seem to >>> have this issue; linux and MS desktops

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive >> server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6. >> >>

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka <grzeg...@janoszka.pl> wrote: > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote: >> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging >> extra >> for IPv4 service. > > ISP's will not c

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 15:28 , Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong > writes: >> >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka <grzeg...@janoszka.pl> >>

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 process. Use ASN 23456 (16-bit) in the AS-Path in place of each ASN32 entry in the path. Preserve the ASN32 path in a separate area of the BGP attributes. So, where in the IPv4 packet do you suggest we place these extra 128 bits of address? Further, what mechanism

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

technical discussion but insults and attacks really have no place. so > please just stop and relax. > > thanks, > > t > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > OK… Let’s look at the ASN32 pr

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >