Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 > devices in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask > to use in delegating addresses in a dynamic plug-and-play hierarchical > topology that can evolve

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message <56157950.5040...@lugosys.com>, "Israel G. Lugo" writes: > > On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 > > devic > es in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask to > use > in

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

>Using the link-level address to distinguish between good and bad email >content was always daunting at best. Thanks for pointing out that this >flawed behaviour must cease. I don't know anyone who does that. But I know a lot of people who use both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to distinguish among

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

Subject: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") Date: Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:06:34PM -0400 Quoting Rob McEwen (r...@invaluement.com): > > I welcome IPv6 adoption in the near future in all but one area: the sending > IPs of valid

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

that in those days, basic hygiene demanded you know who you sent mail to, and on whose behalf. For at least some people. -G On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Måns Nilsson <mansa...@besserwisser.org> wrote: > Subject: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force > rapid ipv

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> (IPv6 ONLY insisting on manufacturers implementing 464XLAT is inferior > in every way to dual stack, There is one way it is superior; it rewards web and other content sites that implement IPv6. Unlike dual stack, it applies pressure where it is needed, on the IPv4-only sites. Grottiness can

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

>From the time we began to take the idea of an address runout seriously in the early 90s to the actual address runout which would be just about now new priorities arose such as spam which I'll say really got going in the late 90s. There were others such as the potential routing table explosion

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

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 21:47 , Rob McEwen wrote: > > Also, it seems so bizarre that in order to TRY to solve this, we have to > make sure that MASSIVE numbers of individual IPv6 IP addresses.. that equal

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

On 10/3/2015 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 addresses. IPv6 eliminates the address scarcity issue. There's no reason to ever think about how many

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

Morizot <tmori...@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") > Also, good luck trying to shove the IPv6 genie back into the bottle. t

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

- Original Message - From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 1:56:58 PM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (w

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

--- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM > To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption > > > In message <2015100123261

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

G [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews >> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM >> To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption >> >> >> In message <2

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

>One thing that I thought was going to be a huge help with sending-IP >blacklists in the IPv6 world... was perhaps shifting to tighter >standards and greater reliance for Forward Confirmed rDNS (FCrDNS). A lot of IPv6 mail systems want you to use SPF and DKIM signatures on IPv6 mail, or they

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 13:45 , Todd Underwood wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between >> an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host. > > i view this

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

gt; > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of Mark Andrews > > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM > > To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk <java

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

t; <m...@beckman.org> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM > Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force > rapid ipv

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

: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 2:04:48 PM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 ado

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

> Also, good luck trying to shove the IPv6 genie back into the bottle. the problem is not getting it into the bottle. the problem is getting it out, at scale. when you actually measure, cgn and other forms of nat are now massive. it is horrifying. randy

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

. >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews >> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM >> To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> S

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

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 addresses Well, that turned out to be a farce. Instead of worrying about

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

og@nanog.org> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM > Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force > rapid ipv6 adoption") > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> wrote: >> On 10/1/2015 11:

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: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > So the problem you are suggesting we focus on is mostly a solved problem. > Content Providers are progressing, modulo some serious laggards, notably > Amazon and a few others. > > newly released IOS9 and OSX El Capitan add

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

--- ma...@isc.org wrote: From: Mark Andrews :: Lots of homes don't even know they are running :: IPv6 in parallel with IPv4. It is usually a :: non-event. -- That's for sure. I have been focusing a lot on work lately instead of my

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

On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: or working out how many addresses a site needs when handing out address blocks At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I quoted above... it then seems like dividing lines can get really blurred here and this statement

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

You make a point, but those ipv6 addresses would not be a available to my cpe. I would agree that if your cpe is less than 5 years old, it should support ipv6. On October 2, 2015 12:30:56 AM ADT, Mark Andrews wrote: > >In message

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

In message <560e1f7c.6030...@invaluement.com>, Rob McEwen writes: > On 10/2/2015 1:10 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > or working out how many addresses a > > site needs when handing out address blocks > > At first, I'm with you on this.. but then when you got to the part I > quoted above... > > it

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

Greetings, Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone creating a new email server, but would that not be easier then trying

RE: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

it working to the people and we can figure out the rest later. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: How to force

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

n" <m...@beckman.org> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 8:35:41 AM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") Every

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

Once upon a time, Stephen Satchell said: > THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW > > I can see, in shared hosting, where each customer gets one IPv6 > address to support HTTPS "properly". All the browsers in common use (except IE on XP, which shouldn't be in common use) handle SNI just

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

sday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com<mailto:r...@invaluement.com>> wrote: On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark

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

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 subdivides it for various customers. So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48. A

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

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is > > delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers. > > A hoster is a LIR. It isn't the end customer. I think you are wrong here for a lot of szenarios. Today we have

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

"Rob McEwen" <r...@invaluement.com> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen &l

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 05:58:59PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is > answer this simple question: > > How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards > compatible with existing IPv4 hosts requiring no software > modification

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > On Thu 2015-Oct-01 18:28:52 -0700, Damian Menscher via NANOG < > nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +,

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Why would they go "IPv6 only" if it costs them huge customer bases? *** anecdote below *** I hosted a discussion about IPv6 the other day to a room full of highly technically-proficient millennials (being maybe in the older portion of "millennial", myself - In spite of how I must sound, I'm

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

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 implies different usage case scenarios... for different parts or different addresses on that block...

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

nowledge, etc. Just get it > working to the people and we can figure out the rest later. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM > To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.a

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

ctober 01, 2015 6:01 PM > To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption > > > In message <20151001232613.gd123...@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew Newton > writes: > > Additionally it is now a OL

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

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

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 1 October 2015 at 16:12, Peter Beckman wrote: > Then the teacher said "The toothpaste is the Internet. Once it's deployed, > it is nearly impossible to put it back the way it was."* > > Beckman > > * OK, the teacher said "The toothpaste are your words. Once they come out,

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/02/2015 07:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik wrote: I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it working to the people and we can figure out the rest later. The reality is that if customers can get it

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

On 10/01/2015 08:18 PM, corta...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse my probable ignorance of such matters, but would it not then be preferred to create a whitelist of proven Email servers/ip's , and just drop the rest? Granted, one would have to create a process to vet anyone creating a new email server,

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc. -- Hugo h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber also on TextSecure & RedPhone From: Damian Menscher -- Sent: 2015-10-02 - 08:45 > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Hugo Slabbert

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Unfortunately, the files at the NANOG links you posted are not available, but I think I get the premise of them from their summaries and what you're trying to say - thank you for linking. The discussion about CGN maintenance versus IPv6 adoption is important at the NANOG level because of exactly

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

t later. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark > > Andrews Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM > > To: Matthew Newton <m...@leicester.ac.uk> > > Cc: nanog@

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Hardware upgrades aren’t difficulty inherent in the protocol. Sure, everyone has to upgrade their hardware sometimes. Whether it’s to get IPv6 capable hardware or to address some other need, periodic hardware upgrades are a simple fact of life. However, if TW put up IPv6 tomorrow as

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: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

gt;" <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption Unfortunately, the files at the NANOG links you posted are not available, but I think I get the premise of them from their summaries and what you're trying to say - thank you for linking. WG]

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between > an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host. i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows: "it was never possible to design a smooth

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

that's crazy. why would you want a simple way to boostrap more addresses from what we have now? you'll never make yourself into an internationally known ipvNEXT advocate with engineering like that. more advocacy. less engineering! t On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, William Herrin

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html There's always a way. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> There's no way to change the IPv4 address to be larger > > http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html > > There's always a way. > > Regards, >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri 2015-Oct-02 09:43:40 -0700, Hugo Slabbert wrote: My apologies; missed the anchor for some reason and just got the top bits of the doc. -- Hugo h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber also on TextSecure & RedPhone From: Damian Menscher -- Sent:

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake I understand the comment, but I see some issues with it. The problem isn't that

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Why are some people here asserting that IPv6 failed when it looks like it is actually taking off pretty good right now? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Jan 2013 about 1% Jan 2014 about 2.5% Jan 2015 about 5% It is already past 9% so we will be at least at 10% by Jan 2016.

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message <560e9a20.7090...@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes: > On 10/02/2015 07:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik wrote: > > I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing on > > device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just get it > > working to the people and we

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 02/10/2015 04:52, Curtis Maurand wrote: If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer work. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the shelf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to replace the hardware.

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

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 subdivides it for various customers. So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48. A hoster getting *just* a /48 is about as silly as a

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:16:50 -, Todd Underwood said: > yes. huh. funny about that, right? what do you think accounts for that? > *why* do you think that *17* *years* later people are still just barely > using this thing. The fact that dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere is a Bad

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Friday, October 2, 2015, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Why are some people here asserting that IPv6 failed when it looks like it > is actually taking off pretty good right now? > > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html > > Jan 2013 about 1% > Jan 2014 about

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

>> None of them does what you propose — Smooth seamless communication between >> an IPv4-only host and an IPv6-only host. > > i view this point/question as an assertion by owen as follows: > > "it was never possible to design a smooth transition and that's why we > gave up on it." > >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

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. > > netsh interface ipv6 install > If the customer knew how to do that he wouldn't still be

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 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: 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

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews wrote: >>>

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

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 charge too much. With too expensive IPv4 many customers will migrate from v4/dual stack to v6-only and ISP's will be left with unused

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

That reminds me of a story. Once a teacher gave each of his students a tube of toothpaste. He said "Squeeze all of the toothpaste out of the tube on to your desk." The kids laughed and did it, making a giant mess and having a ball. When things settled down, the teacher said "Now put all of the

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote: > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess > we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons > learned

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka 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 charge too much. With too expensive IPv4

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 29 September 2015 at 13:37, David Hubbard wrote: > Had an idea the other day; we just need someone with a lot of cash > (google, apple, etc) to buy Netflix and then make all new releases > v6-only for the first 48 hours. I bet my lame Brighthouse and Fios >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong writes: > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka > wrote: > > > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start > charging

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 08:28:13AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong > writes: > > > > > On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka > > wrote: > > > > > > On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote: > >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

i'm still confused, to be honest. why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption. it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 15:28 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message <4f2e19ba-d92a-4bec-86e2-33b405c30...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong > writes: >> >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 13:55 , Grzegorz Janoszka >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2015-10-01 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:

RE: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

> > That sounds like only using 6to4 addresses until the entire internet supports IPv6. > Unfortunately there were NEVER enough IPv4 addresses to actually do that. We > were effectively out of IPv4 addresses before we started. > People tend to forget that TCP/IP was not the only routing

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

"NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:42:57 > To: Mark Andrews<ma...@isc.org>; Owen DeLong<o...@delong.com> > Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption > > i'm still confused, to be honest. > > w

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

RE: How to wish you hadn't rushed ipv6 adoption Force the whole world to switch to IPv6 within the foreseeable future, abolish IPv4... all within several years or even within 50 years... and then watch spam filtering worldwide get knocked back to the stone ages while spammers and blackhat and

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message <20151001232613.gd123...@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew Newton writes: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Todd Underwood wrote: > i'm still confused, to be honest. > > why are we 'encouraging' 'evangelizing' or 'forcing' ipv6 adoption. > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > of the internet. it's unfortunate

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote: I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network. IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver. Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use 464xlat instead of native dual-stack, as was originally envisioned for the transition?

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

I’m not at all tied up in a particular protocol. Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is answer this simple question: How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards compatible with existing IPv4 hosts requiring no software modification on those hosts?

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

for all. Regards, Dovid -Original Message- From: Todd Underwood <toddun...@gmail.com> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:42:57 To: Mark Andrews<ma...@isc.org>; Owen DeLong<o...@delong.com> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Subje

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Newton wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the > rest > > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote: > >> >> I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network. >> >> IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver. >> > > Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no longer work. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my off the shelf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to replace the hardware. There's no firmware update for it supporting ipv6

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

one interesting thing to note... On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > > Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade > now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer. > > We have had 17 years to build up a universal IPv6 network.

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message , Todd Underwood writes: > I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the > embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's > naive and ignorant in a genius way. > >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

In message , Todd Underwood writes: > > one interesting thing to note... > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade > >

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

this is an interesting example of someone who has ill advisedly tied up his identity in a network protocol. this is a mistake i encourage you all not to make. network protocols come and go but you only get one shot at life, so be your own person. this is ad-hominem, owen and i won't engage.

Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

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. In any case I'm giving up on that conversation. And this whole one. It goes nowhere. And this is why v6 is where it is: true believers.

  1   2   >