tor. 23. sep. 2021 01.39 skrev Colton Conor :
> Where does this "You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4
> address on a CGN." limit come from? I have seen several apartment
> complexes run on a single static IPv4 address using a Mikrotik with
> NAT.
>
It is our observation as the
Masataka Ohta writes:
> That IPv6 will be disaggregated into /40 or even /32 is disastrous.
It won't.
No ISPs will deaggregate anything.
Some multi-site enterprises might assign a /48 per remote site from
their single prefix, and want those /48s routed via some transit peers.
But this does
I am a noob here and I know we have failed to implement DNS scavenging
which removes duplicate entries, not sure if its related to your issue.
But if its not enabled on the dns server this can be troublesome.
Sent via BT Email App
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG
Sent: 23 September 2021 02:45:27
300 apartments Mark. No, it's bulk internet and wifi so a single provider.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> And how many apartments where covered by that single IP address? Was this
> where there is a restriction on other providers so the occupants had no
> choice of
> There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with.
> I don't think there is a need neither to invent IPv6 problems, nor to
> promote IPv6 advantages. What we need is a way out of dual-stack-hell.
I don’t disagree, but a reversion to IPv4-only certainly won’t do it.
I
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:42 AM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
> tor. 23. sep. 2021 01.39 skrev Colton Conor :
>
>> Where does this "You can only have about 200-300 subscribers per IPv4
>> address on a CGN." limit come from? I have seen several apartment
>> complexes run on a single static IPv4
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with.
I don't think there is a need neither to invent IPv6 problems, nor to
promote IPv6 advantages. What we need is a way out of dual-stack-hell.
I don’t disagree, but a reversion to IPv4-only
Side question on this thread…
Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to switch to IPv6
and drop IPv4 that the customers would all be just fine with that? I believe
that there are several applications used by some of the the loudest customers
(typically gamers and network
On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 21:48, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> This sounds like very naive nat state management behavior.
> Ideally, you'd be able to maintain state of:
> original-src/dst/ports/proto -> in-interface/external ip/port/proto
>
What you describe is called symmetric NAT and is the kind
The DMCA notices for that single ipv4 /32 must be interesting.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:35 AM Colton Conor
wrote:
> 300 apartments Mark. No, it's bulk internet and wifi so a single provider.
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > And how many apartments where
It appears that Brian Johnson said:
>Side question on this thread…
>
>Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to switch to IPv6
>and drop IPv4 that the customers would all be
>just fine with that?
Try sending e-mail to AOL/Yahoo or Hotmail/Outlook over IPv6.
R's,
John
> On Sep 23, 2021, at 6:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 23, 2021, at 12:50 , Brian Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Side question on this thread…
>>
>> Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to switch to
>> IPv6 and drop IPv4 that the customers would all be just fine
> On Sep 23, 2021, at 18:48 , Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 23, 2021, at 6:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2021, at 12:50 , Brian Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Side question on this thread…
>>>
>>> Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:13 PM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 21:48, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like very naive nat state management behavior.
>> Ideally, you'd be able to maintain state of:
>> original-src/dst/ports/proto -> in-interface/external
Could sell them on FB Marketplace or Craigslist.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andrew
Latham
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 5:22 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Upcycling devices like DOCSIS 3.0 MODEMs
I found some new in box MODEMs in storage and they are 3.0 DOCSIS. I was
wondering how I could
So a single level of NAT and a similar level of customers to that which was
stated could be supported by a single IP. This is not quite a apples to
apples comparison to the double NAT scenario being described below but
close enough for the number of sessions.
Mark
> On 24 Sep 2021, at 01:34,
I found some new in box MODEMs in storage and they are 3.0 DOCSIS. I was
wondering how I could donate them to an ISP that still uses DOCSIS 3.0. I
think several ISPs have switched to 3.1
Should I use the vendor recycling method and hope it stays out of a
landfill?
--
- Andrew "lathama" Latham -
> On Sep 23, 2021, at 12:50 , Brian Johnson wrote:
>
> Side question on this thread…
>
> Is it everyones current expectation that if a provider were to switch to IPv6
> and drop IPv4 that the customers would all be just fine with that? I believe
> that there are several applications used
> On Sep 23, 2021, at 13:26 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>> There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with.
>>> I don't think there is a need neither to invent IPv6 problems, nor to
>>> promote IPv6 advantages. What we need is a way out
19 matches
Mail list logo
