It depends on the provider. Some are decently priced. Neustar /
UltraDNS is exponentially more expensive than their equally capable
competitors. I've seen they're pricing at $50 - 500 per 1M queries,
depending on how bad you are at negotiating. You'll need to spend at
least a few thousand per
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
-Original Message-
IPv6 - while it has just over a decade of work, still has a long
way
to go to fulfill its promise. For the oldtimers, remember that
it
took
IP a couple of decades to gel at version 4. Sure, we can (and
in
some cases - MUST) cram the
On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:37 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
IPv6 - while it has just over a decade of work, still has a long
way
to go to fulfill its promise. For the oldtimers, remember that
it
took
IP a couple of decades to gel at version 4. Sure,
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:16 AM
To: George Bonser
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 ... WRONG! :)
On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:37 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Sure, it lies somewhere between whim and major undertaking.
Where on that path depends
-Original Message-
From: George Bonser
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:30 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 ... WRONG! :)
It isn't easy but it isn't the fault of v6 in most cases.
Put another way, the set of challenges facing the
On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:09 AM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: George Bonser
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:30 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 ... WRONG! :)
It isn't easy but it isn't the fault of v6 in most cases.
Put
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
FYI,
/John
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html
Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing presence in
the Internet industry, for returning its unneeded Internet Protocol version 4
(IPv4) address space
i think this is cool, but ...
ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the
global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the
ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate.
i know the us has the world series, but global arin region
randy
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i think this is cool, but ...
ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the
global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the
ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate.
i know the us has the
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
1986:
I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or
maybe someone spiked my coffee this morning.
Once leading digits became permitted, the syntax was
ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the
global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the
ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate.
i know the us has the world series, but global arin region
The problem is that we haven't been able to
of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space
was returned to ARIN?
Nick
On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote:
FYI,
/John
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html
Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ARIN today
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space
was returned to ARIN?
INTEROP is retaining 2 /16 blocks for existing usage;
i.e. more than
I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access
equipment for a small metro-ethernet network. We're probably talking at max
200-300 subs split between two termination points. Most customers will
probably be at speeds of 100M or less. We'd like the backbone to be 10G and
be
[John, is 45.127.0.0/16 one of the two blocks they keep, or is it
hijacked already? :) ]
On 2010-10-20 17:11, Joel Esler wrote:
Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of
them)
that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great.
The problem with that is
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space
was returned to ARIN?
less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Joel Esler joel.es...@me.com wrote:
Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of
them) that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great.
it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is
~3 months of
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space
was returned to
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
it's nice that interop did a nice thing here, but seriously, this is
~3 months of usage... there is no saving the move to v6, the bottom's
going to fall out on or about june 2011 it seems.
I agree with Chris; this (and any other
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
less than 3 months supply at the going drain rate.
Not to be depressing, but a /8 (or 99% of one :-) is potentially less
than one month's drain on the global IPv4
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The problem with that is indeed in that little part about aren't using
them, if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite
sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it.
Correct. It might make sense to do so,
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN
region drain rate.
Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to
either drain rate is quite reasonable.
/John
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliardn...@foobar.org wrote:
Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space
was returned to ARIN?
less than 3 months supply
We just bought a fair amount of MRV Optiswitches for that same purpose.
F.
On 2010-10-20, at 11:29 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
I'd add Alcatel to that list.
On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote:
I've been tasked with making a recommendation for the core and access
equipment for a small
On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote:
FYI,
/John
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html
Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing presence in
the Internet industry, for returning its unneeded Internet Protocol
I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way.
Appreciation and value are words that most folks at ICANN don't want network
engineers to associate with IP addresses.
The real value is in routing; is the party line.
STLS to me is kind of double speak, ARIN says: this
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:29, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:
I'd add Alcatel to that list.
yep, and also (depending on specific needs/topologies):
Ciena
Cyan
Fujitsu
Corrigent
Adva
Rad Data
Juniper
(in no particular order)
Good luck,
~Chris
On 10/20/2010 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:50 AM
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 ... WRONG! :)
On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:09 AM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Ernie Rubi wrote:
I don't think ARIN (or any other RIR) wants people to think this way.
Ernie - ARIN doesn't have a view on how people should think. It
does have an interest in making sure that number resources policies
that are adopted by community are
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
So would it be more logical for all those willing to return do so only after
depletion when the impact and resulting appreciation is likely to be greater?
It would be best for folks who can return address space
to do so as soon as possible,
On 10/20/2010 11:20 AM, John Curran wrote:
ARIN recognizes that such parties could use the specified
transfer policy to receive compensation despite being able
to return the space, but overall the community recommended
proceeding because the benefit to overall utilization was
deemed worthwhile.
commonplace, will many of the legacy allocations simply become
footnotes? (In the registry document, as well as in history?)
-S.
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 14:34 +0100, John Curran wrote:
FYI,
/John
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html
Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ARIN
On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Stephen D. Strowes wrote:
Interested to know how this will show in the IANA v4 address space
registry. Will 045/8 soon appear as belonging to ARIN, since it is now
not Interop's?
Correct. Also note that the concept of a single RIR managing each
/8 only applies
On 10/20/10 7:34 AM, John Curran wrote:
With less than 5% of the IPv4 address space left in the global free
pool, ARIN warns that Interop's return will not significantly extend
the life of IPv4. ARIN continues to emphasize the need for all
Internet stakeholders to adopt the next generation of
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 17:40 +0100, John Curran wrote:
Also makes me wonder if there are historical versions of this registry
available. If reclamation of large blocks such as this becomes
commonplace, will many of the legacy allocations simply become
footnotes? (In the registry document,
On 10/20/2010 7:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i think this is cool, but ...
ARIN will follow global policy at that time and return it to the
global free pool or distribute the space to those organizations in the
ARIN region with documented need, as appropriate.
i know the us has the world series,
On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Not to stir an already boiling over pot and all, but is there any kind of
report or documentation on releasing of space from countries other then the
North American region?
You're not going to find a lot of large allocations which are
much address
space was returned to ARIN?
Nick
On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote:
FYI,
/John
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html
Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing
presence
On 20/10/10 17:47, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Not to stir an already boiling over pot and all, but is there any kind of
report or documentation on releasing of space from countries other then the
North American region?
Really it's mainly US govt agencies, defence contractors, etc from the dawn of
much address
space was returned to ARIN?
Nick
On 20/10/2010 14:34, John Curran wrote:
FYI,
/John
https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html
Posted: Wednesday, 20 October 2010
ARIN today recognizes Interop, an organization with a long-standing
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 2010-10-20, at 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote:
Any suggestions, success or horror stories are appreciated. ;)
I've been going through pretty much the same exercise looking for a decent PE
for almost two years. Our requirements were for a PE device that had between
12-24 ports (in a perfect
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 Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[John, is 45.127.0.0/16 one of the two blocks they keep, or is it
hijacked already? :) ]
I can authoritatively say, yes it is. We (Interop) are not announcing any
part of 45/8 at the moment, and don't plan to do so until the return is
complete.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Nick Hilliardn...@foobar.org wrote:
Thank you Interop - for performing an outstanding act of altruism.
John, could you provide more details at this stage on how much address space
Joel,
On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Joel Esler wrote:
There are lots of places that /8, and multiple ones at that that aren't using
them.
Which /8s are those?
Thanks,
-drc
7600's/ASR 1k
Have you looked in to Ciso ME 3600X/ME 3800X series?
Without a bias these are the top notch products in the market for Metro E.
-Raman
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jason Lixfeld ja...@lixfeld.ca wrote:
On 2010-10-20, at 11:24 AM, Eric Merkel wrote:
Any suggestions,
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
We all are waiving flags about the return of one solitary /8 to ARIN, (which
is a good thing) but should we not waive flags about new v6 networks too?
Then I would also like to point out that Interop is fully dual-stacked
both for exhibitors and
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[John, is 45.127.0.0/16 one of the two blocks they keep, or is it
hijacked already? :) ]
I can authoritatively say, yes it is.
I spoke too soon. It is not hijacked, it's simply old cruft from an old
show
IPv6 newbie
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses
an fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
communication. They are routable only within a set of cooperating sites
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses an
fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
communication. They are routable only within a set
- Original Message -
From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net
To: Joel Esler joel.es...@me.com
Cc: North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 October, 2010 10:00:25 AM
Subject: Re: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8
address
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:48:47 -0700
Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses
an fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
Anyone from XO, could you please contact me off list for a routing
problem I have inside of XO Fremont Datacenter, trying to file a ticket
with XO isn't working as nobody is answering the phones.
--
Regards, Ulf.
-
Ulf
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
followed the pseudo random number requirement.
Use something like fd00::1234, or incorporate
something like the interface's MAC address into the
I think that's what Jason just said. :-)
On 2010-10-20, at 5:24 PM, Ramanpreet Singh wrote:
7600's/ASR 1k
Have you looked in to Ciso ME 3600X/ME 3800X series?
Without a bias these are the top notch products in the market for Metro E.
-Raman
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jason
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be
globally unique.
The ULA /48s are hoped to only be globally unique, but this only has
a good chance of happening
if all users
Hi Jeroen,
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Special_addresses an
fc00::/7 address includes a 40-bit pseudo random number:
fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses (ULA's) are intended for local
Deepak Jain wrote:
According to the RFC:
3.2.1. Locally Assigned Global IDs
Locally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.2 describes a
Global ID in this case means the 40 bit pseudo random thing. The point here
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I remember writing (complaining) about it in a thread back in April,
appreciated.
I still don't know why anyone would complain, although I do
thank Interop for their generosity.
Here's some truth:
1) At
John Curran wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN
region drain rate.
Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to
either drain rate is quite reasonable.
For what it's worth,
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
followed the pseudo random number requirement.
Use something like
In message aanlktikxiibdh-3pggkagxpu9ky0oyx-gczsq8ajf...@mail.gmail.com, Jame
s Hess writes:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to b
e
globally unique.
The ULA
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Deepak Jain wrote:
According to the RFC:
3.2.1. Locally Assigned Global IDs
Locally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. Section 3.2.2 describes a
Global ID in this case
Or just have the CPE generate a ULA prefix correctly and write it
to NVRAM so you don't need to re-generate it. The internal prefix
/ addresses *WILL* leak. We know this from our experiences with
RFC 1918 addresses. Any CPE vendor that fails to generate random
ULA prefixes should be
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be curious as to what they say regarding why they haven't
followed the pseudo random number
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:07:57 -0500
James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
IPv6 newbie
these addresses, their address scope is global, i.e. they are expected to be
globally unique.
The ULA /48s are hoped to only be
Hi Owen,
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:51:11 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:39:19 -0400
Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Use a pseudo random number, not follow bad examples. Where are these
examples? I'd be
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
I am trying to set up a local IPv6 network and am curious why all the
examples I come accross do not seem to use the 40-bit pseudorandom number?
What should I do? Use something like fd00::1234, or incorporate something
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
Two helpful rules of thumb when picking a domain name:
1.
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses
from provider #1 and PA addresses from provider #2 in your
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?
Part 3 will be when that same
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:46:34 -0700
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would
I wonder if we'll see a decrease in hijacked space because there's less
unassigned space, or if because of the IPv4 block scarcity, it will occur
more often.
I can see aggressive hijackers looking for unused (but assigned) blocks as
small as a /24 and advertising them.
Frank
-Original
In message 4cbf9b7a.1000...@matthew.at, Matthew Kaufman writes:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:15:35 -0500
James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses
from provider #1 and PA
On 10/20/2010 7:15 PM, James Hess wrote:
Perhaps one day, there will be a truly reliable transport protocol,
and an API that allows a bind()
against multiple IPs and a connect()
to all a target host's IPs instead of just one, so both hosts can
learn of each other's IP addresses
that are
On 10/20/2010 7:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message4cbf9b7a.1000...@matthew.at, Matthew Kaufman writes:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome
On 10/20/2010 7:27 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
because of NATs s/b because certain parties refused to acknowledge
that encapsulation of SCTP in UDP would have operational advantages
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:50:06 -0700
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/20/2010 7:27 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
because of NATs s/b because certain parties refused to
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
applications for that protocol that it can boggle. Any type of connection
between two things that
In message 4cbfa9bb.9030...@matthew.at, Matthew Kaufman writes:
ULA + PA can have the same problems, especially if your ULA is
inter-organization ULA, which was one of the cases under discussion.
Which still isn't a problem. Presumably you want your inter-organization
traffic to use ULA
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:29:11 +1100
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4cbfa9bb.9030...@matthew.at, Matthew Kaufman writes:
ULA + PA can have the same problems, especially if your ULA is
inter-organization ULA, which was one of the cases under discussion.
Which still isn't a
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
I am hoping the list can help me out. We need to setup a few data center
locations and I was looking for recommendation’s on City’s and possible
providers to rent space from. I was thinking two within the US to service North
America and possibility also South America. Then also two within
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Santino Codispoti
santino.codisp...@gmail.com wrote:
I am hoping the list can help me out. We need to setup a few data center
locations and I was looking for recommendation’s on City’s and possible
providers to rent space from. I was thinking two within the
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes this is
used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
IMHO, no. There's no disadvantage to using GUA and I personally
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:12:11 -0700
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
I would dearly love to see SCTP take off. There are so many great potential
applications for
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
You assume that
Please see inline
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Santino Codispoti
santino.codisp...@gmail.com wrote:
I am hoping the list can help me out. We need to setup a few data center
locations and I was looking
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke gra...@apolix.co.za wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple
On 10/20/10 9:44 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch
someone out with a collision. By then
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800
Adrian Chadd adr...@creative.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get
caught out by collisions.
The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to
In message 4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za, Graham Beneke writes:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes th
is is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
On 10/20/2010 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
Someone insisted to me yesterday the RFC1918-like address space was
the only way to provide a 'friendly' place for people to start their
journey in playing with IPv6. I think that the idea of real routable
IPs on a lab network daunts many people.
I
98 matches
Mail list logo
