On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
the document: differing network security models that must deliver the
same result for the
mle...@he.net (Mike Leber) wrote:
You can get a free IPv6 BGP tunnel from Hurricane Electric at
http://tunnelbroker.net
We have tunnel servers spread through out the world, so typically the
nearest server has reasonably low latency from your location.
Of course our main business is
coughequinix ethernet exchange/cough
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jul 21, 2010, at 12:59 PM, William McCall wrote:
OP is referencing MPLS/BGP VPNs, not like IPsec VPNs. And I'm not sure
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Simon Horman ho...@verge.net.au wrote:
Thats quite a revelation. I assumed it tested from all points of
the internet other than mine :^)
I suspect it simple does an equivalent of 'wget' of the hostname you
enter... the appengine api doesn't really permit much
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:49 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
the document: differing network
Hi Antonio,
That diagram looks interesting. We currently use slides with a bunch
of animation to explain to this concept, but it may be nice to have
something like this that people can keep as a printed version.
By the way, this is what we think two possible answers are:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:49 AM, William Herrin wrote:
From the lack of dispute, can I infer agreement with the remainder of
my comments wrt mitigations for the one of my addresses doesn't work
problem and the impracticality of
seeing better than 90% (approaching 100%) packet loss to a host within the
ATT network today. Seems to be the result of either a severed link or some
really munged up routing between ATT and Verizon - from my traceroute, the
issue appears about 8 hops into the ATT network. Any insight into this
Dead again?
Web page says Could not connect: .
Northern Colorado, US.
--
*Sincerely,*
*Mikhail Strizhov*
*Email: striz...@cs.colostate.edu mailto:striz...@cs.colostate.edu
*
On 07/21/2010 06:44 AM, Jason Lewis wrote:
This says it's not just down for me.
Up for me in Wi.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Mikhail Strizhov striz...@cs.colostate.edu
wrote:
Dead again?
Web page says Could not connect: .
Northern Colorado, US.
--
*Sincerely,*
*Mikhail Strizhov*
*Email: striz...@cs.colostate.edu
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Mikhail Strizhov wrote:
Dead again?
Web page says Could not connect: .
The multi-threaded download that's been hammering our web servers is still
going on. We've just turned up a new server this morning, and expect to have
the bulk-download processes moved
Do you know of any vpn exchange point implementations please? -I mean
something like IXP but for mpls vpns
Let's say I'm an ISP that bought or merged with many small ISPs each with
it's own AS# and would like to start offering mpls vpn services end to end
In the MPLS world, this type of
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Michael Dillon
wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do you know of any vpn exchange point implementations please? -I mean
something like IXP but for mpls vpns
Let's say I'm an ISP that bought or merged with many small ISPs each with
it's own AS# and would like
Bill,
On 2010-07-22 19:49, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
There is a third major challenge to dual-stack that isn't addressed in
the document: differing network
On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to simplify
them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
more or less forced into
On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band al...@ripe.net wrote:
There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
better idea would be to assign your bog standard
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +0100
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to
simplify
them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
However, the fact is
- Original Message -
From: Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
To: Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, 23 July, 2010 12:17:21 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST, Matthew Walster said:
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
customer a /64 and assign them a /56 or /48 if they request it, routed
to an IP of their choosing.
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST, Matthew Walster said:
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
customer a /64 and assign them a /56 or /48 if they request it,
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 20:24 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST, Matthew Walster said:
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
customer a /64 and assign them a
Could a clueful Qwest NOC engineer contact me off list regarding this:
jke...@zao:512 - mtr --curses --no-dns --report --report-cycles=2 205.185.95.11
HOST: zao Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. 208.85.40.5 0.0% 20.3 0.4 0.3
On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST, Matthew Walster said:
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
customer a
As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/firewall in place is a
security feature,
I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.
In all reality, NAT boxes do work for 99% of customers out there.
Bora
On 7/22/10 7:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Well,
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 +0100
Matthew Walster matt...@walster.org wrote:
On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band al...@ripe.net wrote:
There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
I never saw the point of assigning a
Hi Leo,
Late reply! Sorry. Have been neglecting this folder.
On 2010-07-16, at 16:53, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:35:39PM +, Joe Abley
wrote:
The transition from Deliberately-Unvalidatable Root Zone (DURZ) to
production signed root zone took
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
If it doesn't make sense for IPv4, why would you want to do it for IPv6?
Home wifi router vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work, so of
course in your scenario they
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:53:48 -0700
Akyol, Bora A b...@pnl.gov wrote:
As long as customers believe that having a NAT router/firewall in place is
a security feature,
I don't think anyone is going to get rid of the NAT box.
You need to separate the NAT function (or more specifically, Network
Keep selling them the NAT router, just don't tell them that it applies only
to IPv4 only and not to IPv6. 99.9% of consumers don't know about NAT, they
just want to plug it in and be connected. That's why having a stateful
firewall as standard element of an IPv6-capable router specification
Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 +0100
Matthew Walstermatt...@walster.org wrote:
On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Bandal...@ripe.net wrote:
There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
I never saw the
In all reality:
1. NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful inspection provides
security, NAT just mangles addresses.
2. In the places where NAT works, it does so at a terrible cost. It
breaks a number of things, and, applications like Skype are
incredibly
On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 +0100
Matthew Walstermatt...@walster.org wrote:
On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Bandal...@ripe.net wrote:
There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
the up and
32 matches
Mail list logo
