On 17/01/2013 14:29, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT mess.
On 18/01/2013 17:48, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Suppose a provider fully deploys v6, they will still need CGN so long as
they have customers who want to access the v4 internet.
Yes indeed, and the smart folks who thought (clearly didn't!) about how
the best way to manage IPV6 and IPV4
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Kell [mailto:jeff-k...@utc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:30 PM
[snip]
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
default-deny inbound here, and
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT
for
more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
different.
Corporate
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
The killer app of the internet is called p2p.
P2p is not an app, it's a technique for implementing an app. There are
few apps which require p2p and can't be trivially redesigned not to.
If you'll pardon me saying
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:26:53 +, Mike Jones said:
Potentially another source of IPv4 addresses - every content network
(/hosting provider/etc) that decides they don't want to give their
customers IPv6 reachability is a future bankrupt ISP with a load of
IPv4 to sell off :)
The problem is
On 1/18/13, David Swafford da...@davidswafford.com wrote:
There is no suckerage to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
Correct. CGN may be part of a transition towards IPv6.Not all
providers are necessarily going to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
clients or the general-purpose non-server non-p2p application
developers.
On 18-1-2013 15:03, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
different.
Well yeah, but
(resending with nanog-approved address..)
On 18. jan. 2013 01:30, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything
Owen DeLong wrote:
Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even the
finest of our tricksters.
Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
extensions to code to work around yet more NAT and maybe make it sort of kind
of work almost
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how
On 1/18/13 9:03 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
clients or the
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 4:03 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then others' deployment of IPv6 is made less useful: network
effect.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Clearly we have run out of trickery as multiple layers of NAT stumps even
the finest of our tricksters.
Yes, we can dedicate thousands more developer hours to making yet more
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
well imagine that increasing to 50:1). That means that for
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
It's a free country so you're
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 8:06 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
90% of the
On 1/18/13 12:48 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys
it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then
On 1/18/13 1:03 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:21:28 -0500, William Herrin said:
Then it's a firewall that mildly enhances protection by obstructing
90% of the port scanning attacks which happen against your computer.
It's a free country so you're welcome to believe that the presence or
absence of NAT has no impact
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:03:31 -0500, William Herrin said:
On the technical side, enterprises have been doing large-scale NAT for
more than a decade now without any doomsday consequences. CGN is not
different.
Corporate enterprises have been pushing GPO to the desktop for more
than a decade as
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
means the next must have viral applications will require IPv6 and this
may spur the move away from an IPv4 that has been crippled by NAT
everywhere.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
Years ago, I asked, Why are we stuck with NAT? I still ask that. I
believe that the reason we're stuck with it is that so many of us believe
we're stuck with it--we're resigned to failure, so we don't do anything
about it.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
means the next must have viral applications will require IPv6 and
On 13-01-18 17:00, William Herrin wrote:
Odds of a killer app where one router can't be replaced with a
specialty relay while maintaining the intended function: not bloody
likely.
Back in the late 1980s, large computer manufacturers such as Digital,
HP, IBM were pressured to adopt the future
On 18 January 2013 14:00, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote:
Should NAT become prevalent and prevent innovation because of its
limitations, this means that innovation will happen only with IPv6 which
On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's
Constantine,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
off, British ISP PlusNet is
There is no suckerage to V6. Really, it's not that hard. While
CGN is the reality, we need to keep focused on the ultimate goal -- a
single long term solution. Imagine a day where there is no dual
stack, no IPv4, and no more band-aids. It will be amazing.
david.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at
On 01/18/2013 02:07 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
OSI and X.400 never gained much of a foothole and the millenium
generation probably never heard of them.
Is it possible that the same fate awaits IPv6 ? There is pressure to go
to IPv6, but if solutions are found for IPv4 which are simpler and
On 19 January 2013 04:48, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
No, because NAT-like solutions to perpetuate v4 only handle the client side
of the transaction. At some point there will not be any more v4 address to
assign/allocate to content provider networks. They have seen the writing on
i am not network engineer, but I follow this list to be updated about
important news that affect internet stability.
NAT is already a problem for things like videogames. You want people
to be able to host a multiplayer game, and have his friends to join
the game. A free to play MMO may want to
On 17 January 2013 10:06, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
i am not network engineer, but I follow this list to be updated about
important news that affect internet stability.
NAT is already a problem for things like videogames. You want people
to be able to host a multiplayer game, and have
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Mike Jones wrote:
If you follow this list then you should already know the answer,
functional* IPv6 deployments.
AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game
On 17 January 2013 15:29, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
..
AND game developers who build IPv6 functionality into their products. Do
you hear us, PS3 and Xbox?
Oscar, make sure you are telling your favorite game developers that they
need to support IPv6 if they want to avoid the NAT
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
is frustrating and unfun.
Free network-based firewall to be installed next month. OPT OUT
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
is frustrating and unfun.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
somebody smart can figure how we
Nevertheless, I'll be happy to document my assumptions and show you
where they lead.
I assume that fewer than 1 in 10 eyeballs would find Internet service
behind a NAT unsatisfactory. Eyeballs are the consumers of content,
the modem, cable modem, residential DSL customers.
And this is
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
I'll agree there, as developers have built in some tricks to work around NAT
issues. But in reality doing away with NAT is a much better alternative for
the long haul. So you are both right, but I'll side with Owen when doing
network deployments as to ease my future headaches.
Sent from my
On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
On 17 January 2013 17:17, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
I'm currently using NAT44, with at least two layers of 802.11g
WiFi and 5 routers that seem to be doing independent NAT. Two of them
are mine, then the other 3 are of the ISP, to whom I connect through
802.11g, and it generally works just
Owen DeLong wrote:
And this is where you run off the rails… You are assuming that NAT today
and CGN provide similar functionality from an end-user perspective.
To the extent that CGN functions like the clueless linksys daisy-chain,
then yes it does.
The reality is that they do not. CGN
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
And this is where you run off the rails… You are assuming that NAT today
and CGN provide similar functionality from an end-user perspective.
To the extent that CGN functions like
I hate to break it to you guys more of the larger providers in NA are
implementing CGNAT in the next 6 to 18 months. Especially the mobile carriers.
I have agreed long ago that mobile is the one place where CGN will go mostly
unnoticed. First of all, most mobiles have been behind some
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, fredrik danerklint wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address translation
CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's customers could be sharing one IP
On 16 January 2013 16:31, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, fredrik danerklint wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to
take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
I would hope that PlusNet has valid, well-thought-out reasons for deploying
CGN instead of IPv6. Not knowing those, I can only jugde their position on
its face: foolish and short-sighted.
Move along, nothing
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Daniel Ankers wrote:
In other words, it makes sense to be able to support customers who won't
move to IPv6 in the short-medium term, even though in the long term it's
inevitable.
I agree, IPv6 isn't an answer to we're out of IPv4 addresses right now.
So CGNAT44 i
I would hope that PlusNet has valid, well-thought-out reasons for deploying
CGN instead of IPv6. Not knowing those, I can only jugde their position on
its face: foolish and short-sighted.
Move along, nothing to see here. Barring a few fanatics, everyone here
has known for several years now
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM, fredrik danerklint
fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote:
Barring a few fanatics, everyone here
has known for several years now that CGN would be required for
continuing IPv4 support regardless of the progress of IPv6.
If you spin it right, it's a Free network-based
Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a
class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only having
6rd as service on that network.
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN
use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible
Hi,
If I have calculated the netmasks right that would mean to set aside:
2001:0DB8:6440::/42
for the use of 6rd service:
2001:0DB8:6440:::/64 = 100.64.0.0
2001:0DB8:647F:::/64 = 100.127.255.255
You probably should add a few extra bits for subnetting behind the 6rd CPE.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:53 PM, fredrik danerklint
fredan-na...@fredan.se wrote:
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN
use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible to implement a CGN while
conflicting with neither the user's RFC1918 activity nor the general
On 16/01/2013 08:31, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, fredrik danerklint wrote:
From the article:
Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to
take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address
translation CG-NAT, where potentially all
In message 50f70524.4020...@fredan.se, fredrik danerklint writes:
Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a
class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only havi
ng
6rd as service on that network.
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year
61 matches
Mail list logo
