On 10 December 2012 13:27, Schiller, Heather A
heather.schil...@verizon.com wrote:
Actually, requiring a public whois record is the way it always has been,
that's only recently changed. I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32
:: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64 So, while you are
On Dec 10, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 272782d1-8dea-4718-9429-8b0505dd3...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
=20
In message 50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us, Doug
On Dec 10, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 December 2012 23:10, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone
like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6
support,
On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6
Actually, requiring a public whois record is the way it always has been, that's
only recently changed. I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6
/128 as IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64 So, while you are right, that swip'ing a v4 /32
has never been required, I think your analogy of a v6 /64
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 ::
IPv6 /64
Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an
end-user host
IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128
i.e. a single host or gkw behind a nat. kinda what i get from comcast
and twt now.
IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64
i.e. i get a lan segment.
makes sense
The minimum assignment requiring a swip is also ensconced in RIR
policy.
i am sure that, if you dig deeply enough, a recipe
In message 50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: I
Pv6 /64
Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
in IPv4. As in,
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 ::
IPv6 /64
Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to
A. Murenin; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public
whois?
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29
:: IPv6 /64
Doug
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: I
Pv6 /64
Quite
: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public
whois?
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29
:: IPv6 /64
Doug
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
In message 272782d1-8dea-4718-9429-8b0505dd3...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
=20
In message 50c65c84.6080...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
On 8 December 2012 23:10, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone
like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6
support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free
tunnelbroker.net service.
On 10 December 2012 16:07, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4. You often SWIP blocks
of residential customers down to the pop level.
You often SWIP each commercial customer with IPv4.
To require a SWIP entry for each residential customer is
You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4.
you don't swip anybody. some folk swip each residential customer.
randy
On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as
IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64
Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
It's being implied everywhere that native IPv6 is somehow important to
seek, since we're running out of IPv4 addresses.
Ok, so I'll give you that tunneling a really short bit, tunneling isn't
too bad, but native is most of the time better.
reliable tunnel
bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!!
lower your marginal cost if there are
strategic reasons for building and maintaining that backbone.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2012 8:23 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
The vast majority of AS-AS boundaries on the Internet are settlement free
peering. I guess that makes the Internet a scam.
As for the costs involved, free is a relative term. Most people think of
peering as free
Hi,
Ok, so I'll give you that tunneling a really short bit, tunneling isn't too
bad, but native is most of the time better.
So sad that some companies mess up in such a way that their customers rather
tunnel than use their native infra... :-(
- Sander
On Dec 9, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
reliable tunnel
bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!!
Intellectually I want to agree with you, but after some reflection...
We use lots of tunnels at my org - the IPsec variety. A quick non-scientific
query of our monitoring logs reveals
reliable tunnel
bzzzt! oxymoron alert!!!
We use lots of tunnels at my org - the IPsec variety.
as does iij, very heavily. and it has some issues.
A quick non-scientific query of our monitoring logs reveals that our
tunnels are exactly as reliable as the circuits and routers which
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012, Ryan Malayter wrote:
But where are all these horrifically unreliable tunnels?
6to4 is one example.
I'd say since PMTUD is too often broken on IPv4 (if the tunneling routers
even react properly to PMTUD need-to-frag messages for their tunnel
packets) in combination with
Ok, so I'll give you that tunneling a really short bit, tunneling
isn't too bad, but native is most of the time better.
So sad that some companies mess up in such a way that their
customers rather tunnel than use their native infra... :-(
The ISPs are unfortunately behind what the tunnel
In message
CAAAwwbUbWwK09vPfLJ89HyiupP5pP7ZypBhAbM4WMhFHe-=x...@mail.gmail.com,
Jimmy Hess writes:
On 12/7/12, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
It seems you have an issue with the automated system of one provider
in your RIR service region.This is unusual, I
On 8 December 2012 13:03, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
It's also more than likely a hold over of IPv4 think where, generally,
only companies are allocated address blocks. I would be ringing
the ISP and talking to the staff escalating until you get to someone
who understands the issue.
Hi,
hmm, they get away with it once again. On the other hand their prices
stay low.
Off-topic but somehow important to me:
HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
hetzner.de
Is that true?
That would be great!
Regards
Dan
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote:
Off-topic but somehow important to me:
HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
hetzner.de
Is that true?
That would be great!
Just because companies A and B don't
On Dec 08, 2012, at 21:14 , Darius Jahandarie djahanda...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote:
Off-topic but somehow important to me:
HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
hetzner.de
Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone
like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6
support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free
tunnelbroker.net service. HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
Yes, HE has a
On 8 December 2012 16:12, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote:
Hi,
hmm, they get away with it once again. On the other hand their prices
stay low.
Off-topic but somehow important to me:
HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
33 matches
Mail list logo
