Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

2017-12-21 Thread Karsten Elfenbein
Hi, sounds like you are hosting the origin for the CDN which causes issues. Does the CDN care where it is pulling the data from? Could you place a cheaper origin somewhere else? Like AWS, Italy, Katar or Amsterdam? For 150k/month you can get a lot of bandwidth/storage/rack space somewhere else.

Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

2017-12-21 Thread James Bensley
On 20 December 2017 at 15:52, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 20 December 2017 at 16:55, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > >> And for me, it sounds like faulty aggregation + shaping setup, for example, >> i heard once if i do policing on some models of Cisco switch, on an >>

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > > > 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around > > attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer)

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Jimmy Hess
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: [SNIP] 25B estimate for earth's carrying capacity for humans is likely on the high side, but sure: IPv6 should suffice until we have a few planets' worth of humans, and require an interstellar IP network with end-to-end

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Jason Iannone
M plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million. 3 acquisitions rolled up into AS209: as3549 2605:a300::/32 2001:450::/32 as4323

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

2017-12-21 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 15:09 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > >> some fun examples of the size of ipv6: >> >> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm >> >>

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread ops . lists
A very familiar pattern. Pretty soon, our children will be going to intergalactic governance fora debating v6 exhaustion and dusting off Jim Fleming’s ipv9 -srs —srs

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Jason Iannone wrote: > M plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at > least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide > service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million. > there

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Lee Howard
From: on behalf of Christopher Morrow Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM To: Lee Howard Cc: Mike , nanog list Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too > > >

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Owen DeLong
Current ARIN policy contemplated as much as a /12 per provider and set a cap there allowing a provider that needed more than that to only get additional /12s rather than nibble boundary round-ups. Owen > On Dec 20, 2017, at 15:07 , Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > On

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Lee Howard wrote: > > > From: on behalf of Christopher Morrow < > morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM > To: Lee Howard > Cc: Mike

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Owen DeLong
> ok. I think a bunch of the analysis so far in this thread has basically > assumed dense packing at teh ISP and RIR level.. which really won't happen, > in practice anyway. I was simply stating that if we follow some of the > examples today it's no where near as certain (I think) that '200' is

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Joe Maimon
Owen DeLong wrote: 200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent something much more profligate than current policies. Profligacy based on the assumption of exhaustion impossibility needs to be avoided. Agreed. we've run a number conversion / renumbering

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

2017-12-21 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > If we don’t end up needing to fix other things and replace the codebase > with something that would allow us to redo the address space in the > next 120 years, I’ll be quite surprised. Hi Owen, I bet you're wrong about

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around > attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite as > the transition technology in use. > (map the

RE: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-21 Thread Aaron Gould
Thanks but... that's the most elaborate "no comment" I've ever seen. Lol... thanks ytti -Aaron