no useful benefit
whatsoever.
---
() ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mh...@ox.com]
Sent: Thursday, 03 February, 2011 16:41
To: Matthew Palmer; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: quietly
SMTP is definitely
On 2/19/2011 10:11 AM, kmedc...@dessus.com wrote:
And that has nothing to do with whether a protocol is a peer protocol or not.
IP is a peer-to-peer protocol. As SMTP is implemented over IP, it is also a
peer-to-peer protocol.
At each layer of an architecture, the question of whether a
My understanding of peer-to-peer was that it indicated that all hosts had
equal ability to originate or terminate (as in accept, not as in end) sessions.
That is, the role of client or server is defined by the choice of the
application
and/or software on the host and not by the network.
IP is a
On 2/19/2011 10:11 AM, kmedc...@dessus.com wrote:
And that has nothing to do with whether a protocol is a peer protocol or not.
IP is a peer-to-peer protocol. As SMTP is implemented over IP, it is also a
peer-to-peer protocol.
At each layer of an architecture, the question of whether a
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:57:46 pm Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
This sounds a lot like bellhead speak.
As a long time fan of David Isen, I almost fell off my chair laughing at
that, Michael: Bell *wanted* things -- specifically the network --
On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least mine.
I don't get this. Why spend cycles
On 2/15/2011 5:08 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, David Israel wrote:
They don't want the protocol tied to how things work today; it needs to
be open to innovation and variety. And part of that is that an address
needs to be just an address, with no other significance other than being
unique and routable. The moment an
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive and
creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments like
this that raise the hair on admins'
On 2/15/2011 11:41 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(*) bonkers for whatever operational definition you want - wedged hardware,
corrupted database, coercion by men with legal documents and firearms, whatever.
Route injected by foreign parties into BGP.
Also a reason not to have them even
One of the biggest problem v6 seems to have had is that its designers seemed
to think the problem with v4 was that it didn't have enough features. They
then took features from protocols that ipv4 had killed over the years, and
added them to v6, and said, Look, I made your new IP better. And
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
folks called them backward and stuck in ipv4-think. But the fact
of the matter is, operators want a protocol to be as simple, efficient,
flexible, and stupid as possible. They don't want the protocol tied to how
On 2/3/11 12:59 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
You missed my pointed. Root servers are hard coded, but they aren't
using a well known anycast address.
Actually, most of the IP addresses used for root servers are anycast
addresses and given they're in
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses are
owned by 12 different organizations instead of being golden
addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets into root
server operator politics...
there are perfectly
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses are
owned by 12 different organizations instead of being golden
addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch,
On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
are owned by 12 different organizations instead of being
golden addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets
into root server
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
are owned by 12 different organizations instead of being
golden addresses
On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Ignoring historical mistakes, what would they be?
gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would want to renumber of out
198.32.64.0/24...
I guess you missed the part where I said Ignoring historical mistakes.
making them immutable pretty much
Ditto.
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:02 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: quietly
snip
I have also now seen 2 different vendor DSL modems which when not using
PPPoE require a manually entered default router (ie
Sounds like PI space is a solution for those 5000 desktops.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: david raistrick [mailto:dr...@icantclick.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:05 AM
To: Cameron Byrne; Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: quietly
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Cameron
]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:23 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: quietly
On 2 feb 2011, at 16:00, Owen DeLong wrote:
SLAAC fails because you can't get information about DNS, NTP, or anything
other than a list of prefixes and a router that MIGHT actually be able to
default
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Derek J. Balling dr...@megacity.org wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could that be any more of
The end-to-end model is about If my packet is permitted by policy and
delivered to the
remote host, I expect it to arrive as sent, without unexpected
modifications.
Well, it's about communications integrity being the responsibility of the
endpoint. It
is therefore expected that the network not
sure
From: Lee Howard l...@asgard.org
To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com; david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 2:16:35 PM
Subject: RE: quietly
The end-to-end model is about If my packet
Firewalls merely constrict it. Not that I advocate against the use of
firewalls;
in fact, I think I'm agreeing with you, and extending the argument a little
further,
that we should move from NAT to firewalls, then from stateful firewalls to
secure hosts and network security appliances.
In article 85d304ba-6c4e-4b86-9717-2adb542b8...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't
do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that
blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before
In article 20110205131510.be13e9b5...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small
enterprise attract their attention and get the features added?
You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article 20110205131510.be13e9b5...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small
enterprise attract their attention and get the features added?
You return the
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition.
No, it can't be 100% magic on the part of the service provider.
It still has to happen.
On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you advertise a product as internet access, then, providing limited or
partial access
to the internet does not fulfill the terms of the contract unless you have
the appropriate
disclaimers.
And in nearly every ISP's terms-of-service, which
On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition.
No, it can't be 100% magic on the part
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:43:18AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
I believe that Sony will offer IPv6 software upgrades for the PS-3 because
they will eventually realize that failing to do so is bad for future sales.
Sony appears quite willing to file eye-openingly broad discovery requests
in its
On Feb 6, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Henry Yen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:43:18AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
I believe that Sony will offer IPv6 software upgrades for the PS-3 because
they will eventually realize that failing to do so is bad for future sales.
Sony appears quite willing to
Once upon a time, Henry Yen he...@aegisinfosys.com said:
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:43:18AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
I believe that Sony will offer IPv6 software upgrades for the PS-3 because
they will eventually realize that failing to do so is bad for future sales.
Technical impediments
On Feb 6, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
While Sony is, indeed, showing surprising market ignorance and bad
judgment at the moment, I think that the market will eventually teach
them a lesson in these regards.
Time will tell.
It is worth correlating that there seems to be some
On 2/6/2011 2:53 PM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
It is worth correlating that there seems to be some agreement to surprising market
ignorance in the feature set and implementation of IPv6 as it pertains to the
demands of its myriad actual consumers, and that the market will eventually teach the
In message 23119638.5335.1297017284299.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com, Ja
y Ashworth writes:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this
On 2/6/2011 4:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
PS3 will only be a problem if it doesn't work through double NAT
or there is no IPv4 path available. Homes will be dual stacked for
the next 10 years or so even if the upstream is IPv6 only. DS-Lite
or similar will provide a IPv4 path. The DS-Lite
In message 4d4f27e4.6080...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/6/2011 4:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
PS3 will only be a problem if it doesn't work through double NAT
or there is no IPv4 path available. Homes will be dual stacked for
the next 10 years or so even if the upstream is IPv6
On 2011-02-03, at 18:37, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:31 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I, personally, have been waiting to hear what happens when network techs
discover that they can't carry IP addresses around in their heads anymore.
That sounds trivial, perhaps, but I don't think
On 2/6/2011 6:13 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure this is the nightmare people think it will be.
In my (admittedly fairly small-scale) experience with operating v6 on real
networks, being able to figure out a prefix from a schema such as
ARIN:ARIN:SITE:VLAN::/64
makes things a lot
On 2/5/2011 1:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not sure how I feel about a more adaptive version. Sounds like it would be
better
than the current state, but, I vastly prefer I pay, you route. If I want
filtration, I'll
tell you.
I generally agree with you. However, I also believe that every network
In article alpine.bsf.2.00.1102041723070.54...@murf.icantclick.org,
david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have
to renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether
that's once
But (what I keep being told) you
In article 20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once
In article f432e474-9725-4159-870a-d5432fe6e...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never knowing
that there were wrenches that there are new tools
On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article alpine.bsf.2.00.1102041723070.54...@murf.icantclick.org, david
raistrick dr...@icantclick.org writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers -
In message xq1vy4e3bstnf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
In article 20110204225150.6fac49b2...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether
In message eqde49gvpstnf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
In article f432e474-9725-4159-870a-d5432fe6e...@delong.com, Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com writes
What is important with IPv6 is to teach the generation of hammer-wielding
mechanics who have grown up rarely seeing a screw and never
If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the
contract and the contract says they are providing internet access,
then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a
termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to
date.
(Yes, I have successfully
and saying by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
sin no more! Thank you Mr. DeLong from making the blind see again!
More likely uh, oh,
In message 20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
and saying by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
stunned us with its symmetry and loveliness that we shall bow down and
sin no more!
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could that be any more of a waste of yours and their time?
This is like telling the cashier at the
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this year
in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
count.)
John -
I happen to know with absolute certainty that the above statement is false.
But I'd be happy to take your money! :-)
Nathan
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1102052106001.53...@joyce.lan, John R. Levine wr
ites:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
In message bc81acea-8dea-4380-8a57-a4f570e3c...@megacity.org, Derek J. Balli
ng writes:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Wow... Could
On 2/5/2011 8:06 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North America offers IPv6 this
year in the wifi they provide to customers. (Conference networks don't
count.)
http://twitter.com/unquietwiki/status/449593712050176 springs to mind --
it was even *last* year.
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20110205150005.40621.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
and saying by God, this Owen character is right, we're in breach of
contract and his definition of the purity of Internet ports has so
stunned us with its symmetry and
John R. Levine wrote:
I have told a hotel they need to install equipment that supports RA
guard as I've checked out. This was a hotel that only offered IPv4.
Hotels ask for feedback on their services. If you see a fault report
it in writing.
Sure. Bet you ten bucks that no hotel in North
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely
enable IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
makes the various security threats -- including the current topic of
rogue RAs -- go
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6 enabled OS, it
was really
On Feb 5, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
OR just upgrade your gear, and while you're at it, you can now safely enable
IPv6 anyway.
Well, enable IPv6. Safely? I don't see how upgrading your gear magically
makes the various security
Derek J. Balling wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
I know a hospital in Metro Detroit that was offering it on their patient and
guest WiFi in 2009. Of course, neither they, nor the individual running the
rogue IPv6 router knew that, but as a person running an IPv6
In article 20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
enterprises in a change to IPv6.
It isn't change to, its add IPv6.
I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
where
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
It isn't change to, its add IPv6.
I expect to see IPv4 used for years inside homes and enterprises
where there is enough IPv4 addresses to meet the internal needs.
It's external communication which needs to switch to IPv6. Internal
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS proxy (most do) then it can map the record to
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
only things that actually give a damn about it.
It's client/server unless it's peer-to-peer
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:38, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14:00 EST, david raistrick said:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for what, 15+
years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and P2P are really the
only things that actually
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn about
it.
Largely because we've been living with
On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS
snip
Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
Cheers,
-- jra
In different ways, yes, it was.
Owen
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective on what
the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people who claim to be
in the know on these topics that
In message WQE8G0a2F$snf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
In article 20110204000954.a64c79a9...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org writes
These are just my straw poll of what may be difficult for small
enterprises in a change to IPv6.
It isn't change to, its add IPv6.
I
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu, Lamar Owen writes:
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only inter
nal host know what to do with an
Semi-OT:
You are now what we need you to be. A beaten, resentful people who
will have to rebuild, who will have to rely on our.. good graces. Who
can be used and.. guided as we wish to guide you. Perfect ground for
us to do our work.. Quietly, quietly.
Sorry.
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1102041250570.54...@murf.icantclick.org, david rai
strick writes:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are
In article f05d77a9631cae4097f7b69095f1b06f039...@ex02.drtel.lan,
Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com writes
Some people have no perspective on what the Internet is and it's real
power. I've met too many people who claim to be in the know on these
topics that don't understand that NAT was
Everyone doesn't suddenly get owned because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that we
are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days before NAT
(and SPI).
--
david raistrick
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Roland Perry wrote:
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber! Get PI
space and insert magic here!
david raistrick wrote:
Everyone doesn't suddenly get owned because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
we are not the average consumers anymore. We were, in the days
before NAT (and SPI).
A
In message fe7943df-6a3a-478f-af40-de4d3592f...@puck.nether.net, Jared Mauch
writes:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 201102041140.42719.lo...@pari.edu, Lamar Owen writes:
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll
In message clgjgqw4yhtnf...@perry.co.uk, Roland Perry writes:
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
the new ADSL
On 2/4/11 2:34 PM, R A Lichtensteiger wrote:
david raistrick wrote:
Everyone doesn't suddenly get owned because there isn't a external
firewall. Modern OS's default to secure.
We clearly live and work in different worlds. Not to mention that
we are not the average consumers anymore.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:04 AM, david raistrick wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er. That's not news. That's been the state of the art for
what, 15+ years or so now? SIP (because it's peer to peer) and
P2P are really the only things that actually give a damn
On 2/4/2011 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Hell, even without CPE doing it, many residential ISPs (regardless of NAT)
block inbound traffic to consumers.
Really? And they have subscribers? Surprising.
Mark Andrews wrote:
I run machines all the time that don't have firewall to protect
them
Original Message -
From: Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
who claim to be in the know on these topics that don't understand
that NAT was
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Original Message -
From: Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective
on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people
who claim to be in the know on
On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the case
of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
not have a problem unless your traffic patterns drew concerns and
caused
an
On 2/4/2011 9:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Maybe because it is just easier to do a transparent redirect to the ISPs
mail server and look for patterns there.
Analyzing flows generally isn't any more difficult than analyzing mail
log patterns. It doesn't have the queue and check mechanism of a
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/4/2011 8:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True... If you review the NANOG archives you'll find that at least in the
case
of the port 25 absurdity, I have noticed and have railed against it.
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP
On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Yeah, I threw it in as an afterthought. ISP firewalls do exist and not
just small isolated incidents. I wish more money had gone into making
them much more adaptive, then you could enjoy your tcp/25 and possibly
not have a problem unless
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Example: if you give administrators the option of putting a router
address in a DHCP option, they will do so and some fraction of the time,
this will be the wrong address and things don't work. If you let
Just need to add default route in there and make dhcpd do RA
then the user can turn off RA on their routers and not care
that DHCPv6 doesn't include default router.
Having a DHCP server generate RA messages kind of defeats the point of
having RA messages in the first place, resulting in
On 2 feb 2011, at 23:40, Lamar Owen wrote:
I can explain everything you need to know about how to run IPv6 BGP, RIP and
OSPF in an hour and a half. Did that at a RIPE meeting some years ago.
Setting up Apache to use IPv6 is one line of config. BIND two or three (not
counting IPv6 reverse
Some applications will still require ALG functionality (or modification)
to manage the state in the stateful firewall.
This is where I think the end to end mantra has lead us astray.
The users do not care, they just want stuff to work despite security
and other real world complexities that
On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:47 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Having a DHCP server generate RA messages kind of defeats the point of having
RA messages
in the first place, resulting in loss of robustness, and now a new mode of
failure.
And by new here you mean exactly the same mode of failure that's
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:22:34PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
End user, a /48 will cost you $1,250 one-time and then it's part of
your usual $100/year that you would be
paying if you had an ASN or IPv4 space anyway.
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
On 03/02/2011 12:49, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure-enduser.html
(other than because they can, I mean).
That's if you deal with the RIPE NCC directly. If you get your direct
assignments via a LIR, the cost
]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:48 PM
To: Brandon Butterworth
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: quietly
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Brandon Butterworth
bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
Just need to add default route in there and make dhcpd do RA
then the user can turn off RA
* Nick Hilliard:
On 03/02/2011 12:49, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure-enduser.html
(other than because they can, I mean).
That's if you deal with the RIPE NCC directly. If you get your direct
assignments
1 - 100 of 389 matches
Mail list logo
