On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Stephen R. Carter
wrote:
> We love our 5100s here.
Out of interest: Are you running 13.2 or 14.1?
What features are you using?
Our own experiences with a bunch of 48 & 96 port machines running 14.1
is painful to say the least.
Richard
Dear all,
I have received a lot of off-list mail as a result of my last email,
so I figured I would try the same approach local loops.
We seem to be unable to get past the silk screen of residential,
private lines with most carriers of local loops within NYC.
Specifically, we are looking for on
Dear all,
we want to establish a presence in NYC and will need to collect a few
local loops (10M-100M) from around NYC. From there, we will connect
back to Germany.
So, in summary, we will need:
* 2-5 rack units to allow for initial deployment and growth
* good connectivity to local loops
* good
Dear all,
you might still remember draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming [1] being
announced on this list [2]. After an extensive period of gathering
feedback and both a change in name and IETF Working Group, I am
pleased to announce the new draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming [3].
Taking the broa
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton wrote:
> If you're looking for serious feedback:
We are.
> 3. I've never had a problem calling it "field," I think that 5952 is a
> perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the
> fuss is about. :)
I seem to remember one of t
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 14:05, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> I will add quad to -03 anyway. If you get a few +1 on hexquad, I am
> against adding that, as well.
Erm. Belated, but I am _not_ against adding etc pp.
Richard
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:33, Daniel Hagerty wrote:
> Ambiguating usages like "Take the least signifigant quad of that
> ipv6 address" to mean either 16 bits or 64 bits, when it currently is
> unamibigously 64 bits won't make the lives of C/C++ programmers
> writing IPv6 code any easier.
Agr
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 16:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
> then, the other ISPs
> will eventually find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as their
> customers start to ask "Why can't I have a /48 like my friend Bob
> got from provider Z?"
I kinda implied that, but yes, I should have written it ou
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 15:07, William Herrin wrote:
> Trimming zeros on both the left and the right, as the correctly
> written IPv6 notation "1::/16" would have us do, is confusing. It's
> like writing one million and one tenth as "1,,.1" instead of
> "1,000,000.1".
No, there are simply two me
For the sake of completeness, the relevant part of what I answered
privately can be found below.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 13:22, Jeff Aitken wrote:
> [ Meant to send this to the list and not directly to Richard. ]
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:07:40AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
Please don't group several emails into one. It breaks threads. And
while I could not find anything about this in the NANOG FAQ, it's
common netiquette not to do so.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 23:50, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Looks like an ass-u
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 23:15, Owen DeLong wrote:
> In fact, it would look pretty weird to most people if we started writing
> 951-21-42-33 (or I bet they wouldn't expect that was a zip code in
> any case). Similarly, if we start placing the separators in arbitrary
> places in phone numbers, peop
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 16:54, William Herrin wrote:
> Because in my version fd::/8
> actually is the same as fd00::/8, which, as you rightly point out, is
> exactly what a normal human being would naturally expect.
Which is against every expectation of anyone who ever learned Arabic
numbers in a
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 23:15, Owen DeLong wrote:
You seem to be indirectly answering the parent posting in much of what
you say. That is fine, I just wanted to point it out.
> > It's a commonly accepted, well-defined convention to save humans
> > effort while not sacrificing readability. There
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 23:52, William Herrin wrote:
> I thought about that. Have a "one colon rule" that IPv6 addresses in
> hexidecimal format have to include at least one colon somewhere. The
> regex which picks that token out versus the other possibilities is
> easy enough to write and so is
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin wrote:
> Bit, nibble and /64 then. /64 is treated specially by functions in the
> protocol (like SLAAC) thus it's a protocol boundary rather than a
> social one (/12 IANA allocations, /32 ISP allocations, /48 end-user
> assignments).
I would argue th
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:45, William Herrin wrote:
> I have an anti-naming proposal: Allow users to place the colons
> -anywhere- or even leave them out altogether without changing the
> semantics of the IPv6 address.
A decade or two of established syntax disagree. IPv6 addresses, UUIDs
and si
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 17:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It is always two bytes. A byte is not always an octet. Some machines do
> have byte sizes other than 8 bits
Vice versa. It's always two octects, but on some systems it may not be
two bytes.
>, although few of them are likely to have
> IPv6 st
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:14, Scott Morris wrote:
> If 8 bits is a byte, then 16 bits should be a mouthful.
When does it become a meal and, more importantly, do you want to
supper (sic) size?
RIchard
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:57, George Bonser wrote:
> That's exactly what I was going to say but didn't want to quibble. We tend
> to call them "quads" at work. What do you call that indeterminate space
> between two colons :: where it might be four or more zeros in there? That's a
> bunch o
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:09, Frank Habicht wrote:
> I saw 'field' somewhere
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-2.1
> seems to agree.
I seem to remember "field" being used with the understanding that it's
a placeholder and not a definite term. As I can't find an actual
source fo
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
> express my preference here.
I considered using the Condorcet method [1] (modified for NotA), but
as past experience has shown that people get easily confused by it, I
decid
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 07:00, wrote:
> problem is, its not alwas ggoig to be two bytes...
It's always two bytes, but people may choose to omit them. That is a
social, not a (purely) technical, syntax, though.
Richard
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
Being highly pedantic Germans, this annoyed quite a few people within
the DENOG c
24 matches
Mail list logo
