On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addresses, it's
Matthew Petach wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you
their customers. If, however, we as a community don't want migration but
cohabitation then lets do that. Which one do we ultimately want?
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmai...@ttec.com]
Sent: 22 October 2010 14:25
To: Matthew Petach
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8
Ben Butler wrote:
If we, as a community of operators are going to get on and deploy IPv6 and we
agree it's a migration the lets get doing and set some targets dates / BCP for
when it is reasonably expected that net/sys admins will have completed the
rollout and by whatever contractual or
-Original Message-
From: Ben Butler [mailto:ben.but...@c2internet.net]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:40 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
see a potential result of huge swathes of v4 resources reusable by
these companies, probably dwarfing
On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:36 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
So, if your company is not doing IPv6
On 2010-10-20 22:19, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently did something with IPv6, if you
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
All well and good until some of their customers are on IPv6...
Then what?
Someone will build an appliance to deal with this problem. ;-)
Jens
--
-
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Jens Link wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
All well and good until some of their customers are on IPv6...
Then what?
Someone will build an appliance to deal with this problem. ;-)
And I estimate that the user experience through such appliances
: 21 October 2010 15:59
To: Owen DeLong; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
their existing allocation
On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
their existing allocation of a /24 of IPv4 addresses included.
All
On 10/21/2010 11:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Are IPv6 connected machines unable to access IPv4 addresses?
Unless you put a application/protocol translation in the middle IPv6
can't talk to IPv4. yahoo(IVI,Ecdysis NAT64) for two possibilities
On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able
in v4 land, then v4 and v6,
On 21 Oct 2010 10:07, Ben Butler wrote:
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able in
v4 land, then v4 and v6, then
'; Owen DeLong; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
presumably at one time
October 2010 18:09
To: Ben Butler
Cc: 'Dan White'; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
I can live with running dual stack for a number of years as long as IPv4 has
a turn off date, much like analogue TV services, thus putting
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your
target populations to matter?
From an
On 21/10/10 14:53 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your
From: Dan White
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:30 AM
To: Ben Butler
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up? From an accounting and
cost
recovery
On 10/21/2010 09:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the
public
internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and will be reachable
via v6
only ...
Yep, you can't do
From: Ben Butler
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:18 AM
To: 'Marshall Eubanks'
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Hi,
What is the consequence of not managing to transition the v4 network
and having to maintain it indefinitely. I think if the cost
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
The first step will be a registrar saying after this date, we will no
longer issue any IPv4 addresses for whatever reason and at the same
time, getting very aggressive in reclaiming space from dead entities,
hijackers,
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addresses, it's going to cost an extra $50/month. ??
Matt
Either the telephone company or the cable company. Probably both.
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:08 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: Ben Butler; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
wrote:
The first step will be a registrar saying after this date, we will
no
longer issue
not inter-communicable?
Ben
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Giagnocavo [mailto:patr...@zill.net]
Sent: 21 October 2010 15:59
To: Owen DeLong; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually for those of my clients in one
Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: 21 October 2010 16:30
To: Ben Butler
Cc: 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; Owen DeLong; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things
On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
On 10/21/2010 09:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the
public
internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addresses, it's going to cost an extra $50/month. ??
Matt
Either the
Step 1:
On 21/10/10 18:34 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
ROFL, Comcast is already telling their residential customers that if they want
a static
IPv4 address it will cost them an extra ~$60/month.
(Delta between residential and business: ~$55/month, single static IPv4 address
on business circuit:
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 11:18 +1100, Julien Goodwin wrote:
MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply drop packets with a
source
address of .0 or .255 coming from the legacy class C space, this hit
us
with some Win 2k3 servers that for a bunch of stupid reasons needed to
be connected to from
On 20 October 2010 01:16, Julien Goodwin jgood...@studio442.com.au wrote:
MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply drop packets with a source
address of .0 or .255 coming from the legacy class C space,
I did say in 83.x, but it's good to know that there are problems with
old Class-C
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently did something with IPv6, if you didn't play
in the 6bone/early-RIR allocs you are not a pioneer as you are 10 years
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently did something with IPv6, if you didn't play
in the 6bone/early-RIR
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:19:43PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently
On 10/18/2010 7:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
So, if your company is not doing IPv6 yet, you really are really getting
late now.
Actually
(Probe Networks) j...@probe-networks.de
To: Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 5:03:06 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
How do you want to do that without IPv6 connectivity? :-)
-Jonas
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
SCNR
Jens
--
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:49:10 +0200, Jens Link said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
Or spots an address which uses letters and colons and looks
syntactically incorrect to them?
Do you really want untrained people working on your network?
--
...@walster.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:53 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 19 October 2010 14:12, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C
, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:55:56 PM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Servers work just fine over tunnels if necessary too.
Get your public-facing content and services on IPv6 as fast as possible.
Make IPv6
October, 2010 8:55:56 PM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Servers work just fine over tunnels if necessary too.
Get your public-facing content and services on IPv6 as fast as possible.
Make IPv6 available to your customers as quickly as possible too.
Finally, your internal
Martin fra...@genius.com
Cc: Jonas Frey (Probe Networks) j...@probe-networks.de, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:55:56 PM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Servers work just fine over tunnels if necessary too
On 10/19/2010 2:27 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
If you run Cisco ACE load balancers and start with your web server farm I
can assure you that you will be stuck because ACE loaad balancers do not
That's not the only product with issues. As previously discussed on
list, there's also issues with DR
On 10/19/2010 10:15 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
I would say for most of our customers, especially in the hosting space, a
class C is a /24, they just don't know networking at all and build their
hosting lans using /24s for each vlan.
Very few of the requests that we get are submitted using
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by a
reference to 213/8 because it's in Class-C space?
Don't get me wrong. I like the idea. Especially after the discussion I had
Frey (Probe Networks) j...@probe-networks.de, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:55:56 PM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Servers work just fine over tunnels if necessary too.
Get your public-facing
On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
So stick in a IPv6-IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
load balancer.
Nah considering v6 traffic is small I have a simpler solution, I prefer to
set up a temporary web
In message c8e36161.636f0%z...@zaidali.com, Zaid Ali writes:
On 10/19/10 2:37 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
So stick a router in parallel and just route IPv6 over it.
So stick in a IPv6-IPv4 proxy and send that traffic through the
load balancer.
Nah considering v6 traffic
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
of IPv6 growth so you can justify him/her to sign off on IPv6 expenses. A
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
of IPv6
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs the risk
of being overloaded.
And what a wonderful problem to have! You can show a CFO a nice cacti graph
On 20/10/10 01:52, Matthew Walster wrote:
No, and neither can anyone else... What's more is that they'll not use
.0, .255, .1 (because apparently only routers are supposed to use
that), .254 (who knows...)
There's actually a good reason for that.
MS Windows (at least 2k3 server) will simply
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:25:12 -0700
Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
On 10/19/10 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Adding is seperate IPv6 server is a work around and runs
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:41:09 -0700
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
You are confusing SI with Packet Filters. The technologies are
different
and it is, also, important to understand this distinction as well.
I don't think I am confusing the two. I am saying that I have seen
On 10/19/10 9:24 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:24:02 +0200
Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
You are going to kill about 90% of all net-/sysadmins?
Do you *really* want somebody working on your network that gets confused by
a
reference to
Jeroen Massar wrote:
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
Just for clarification, that article says 5% left, not 5x /8.
According to Leo's E-mail earlier, they have 12 /8s left
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
IPV4 -easy();
IPV6-really().Really().Difficult();
I'll listen, but I need my vendors, carriers, etc. to all get on board first.
Jeff
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org writes:
So, if your company is not doing IPv6 yet, you really are really getting
late now.
They won't listen.
...@quux.de
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I'll listen, but I need my vendors, carriers, etc. to all get on board first.
Jeff
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org
and apply the right
pressure to your vendors, carriers, etc
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net
To: Jens Link li...@quux.de
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I'll listen
...@quux.de
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I'll listen, but I need my vendors, carriers, etc. to all get on board first.
Jeff
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
Jeroen Massar jer
pressure to your vendors, carriers, etc
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net
To: Jens Link li...@quux.de
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I'll listen, but I need my
On 10/18/10 5:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
Late to the party...
The hipsters have already moved on having grown bored with their v6
deployments around 2004.
Hello,
ML wrote:
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
I'm afraid I'm still doing it before it's cool. )-;
--
Aleksi Suhonen
() ascii ribbon campaign
/\ support plain text e-mail
Uh that would be 12 left -- 7 general distribution and 5 reserved for the
global end allocation policy.
That's 5%, not 5 /8s.
Owen
On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
IPV4 -easy();
IPV6-really().Really().Difficult();
Have you done IPv6?
I have... It's not even
If you aren't telling your existing vendors that you need IPv6 now, you
need to be. If your vendors aren't getting the message, it's well past
time to take action and start looking for other vendors.
Owen
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:15 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
I'll listen, but I need my vendors,
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 17:27]:
Have you done IPv6?
I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
again). from an implementors (I have written a lot of kernel-side
networking
Owen,
He did not display the return values of these functions.
I think his IPv6 one returns FALSE;
- Jared
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 17:27]:
Have you done IPv6?
I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
again). from an
-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:36 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
instead of working on a viable alternative that doesn't suck.
Which is certainly possible.
I would say that at this point it is too
On 10/18/10 8:35 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 17:27]:
Have you done IPv6?
I have... It's not even difficult(), let alone really().Really().Difficult().
maybe not from a users standpoint (that comes later when it misbehaves
again). from an implementors
I'm wondering how long it'll be until HE starts spamming their IPv6 service...
Tim Burke
(815) 556-2000
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:44, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:18:57 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
On 10/18/2010 8:16 AM, ML wrote:
And +1 on the pioneers comment too.
Paul.
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
IPV4 -easy();
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:47 AM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:36 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
instead of working on a viable alternative that doesn't suck.
Which
Owen DeLong wrote:
...
It's really unfortunate that most people don't understand the
distinction.
If they did, it would help them to realize that NAT doesn't actually do
anything for security, it just helps with address conservation
(although
it has some limits there, as well).
Actually
li...@quux.de
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 1:15:16 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I'll listen, but I need my vendors, carriers, etc. to all get on board
first.
Jeff
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Jens Link li...@quux.de wrote:
Jeroen
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:25 AM
To: George Bonser
Cc: Henning Brauer; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Nobody is using dynamic nat pools to block inbound connections.
Many
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:52 AM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:25 AM
To: George Bonser
Cc: Henning Brauer; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Nobody is using
On 10/18/2010 11:19, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 18:29]:
The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6.
that is right.
It works just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
that is partially true. it can work just fine,
You are confusing SI with Packet Filters. The technologies are
different
and it is, also, important to understand this distinction as well.
I don't think I am confusing the two. I am saying that I have seen
people use them and think they are secure when they aren't. IPv6 is
going to make
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [2010-10-18 18:29]:
The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6.
that is right.
It works just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
that is partially true. it can work
On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Johnny Eriksson wrote:
Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Actually nat does something for security, it decimates it. Any 'real'
security system (physical, technology, ...) includes some form of audit
trail. NAT explicitly breaks any form of audit trail, unless
Message - From: Aleksi Suhonen
nanog-pos...@axu.tm To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 19 October,
2010 3:07:32 AM Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Hello,
ML wrote:
IPv6 Hipsters..Doing it before it was cool.
I'm afraid I'm still doing it before it's cool. )-;
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:41:36 +0200, Jens Link said:
Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org writes:
So, if your company is not doing IPv6 yet, you really are really getting
late now.
They won't listen.
Consider it evolution in action.
:)
pgpBYy5yKbRFN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Original Message -
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
To: Franck Martin fra...@genius.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 10/18/10 1:38 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm an IPv6 pioneer, because I did
Wouldn't it be better to leave such labels and judgements to future
generations? I'm sure they'll be the best judge of who led them to paradise
/ruin.
-dorian
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:52:18 PDT, George Bonser said:
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
The good news is that stateful inspection doesn't go away in IPv6. It works
just fine. All that goes away is the header mangling.
Exactly true but there are people out there who experience it
On 10/18/2010 5:46 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:52:18 PDT, George Bonser said:
Those people are next on my hit list, after we've finally eliminated those
who still talk about class A/B/C addresses. :)
IPv6 isn't going to make class-based routing obsolete... is it?
IPv6 isn't going to make class-based routing obsolete... is it?
*ducks*
cheers!
Andrew
Of course not. My users are already asking for some Class G networks
(/56) to use.
93 matches
Mail list logo
