On Friday 15 June 2007 00:27, Olsen, Jason wrote:
So, what practices do you folks follow? What are the up
and downsides you encounter?
At my previous employer, we came up with a formula that we
were happy with. For reverse DNS, it involves:
* defining the interface
* defining the device
Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is
pretty pointless.
--
Sent from my BlackBerry.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33
To:Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:00:36 BST, Alexander Harrowell said:
1. IPv4 address space is a scarce resource and it will soon be exhausted.
2. It hasn't run out already due to various efficiency improvements.
3. These are themselves limited.
4. IPv6, though, will provide abundant address
multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams.
the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group
this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level
Steve
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +, Christian
Amazink! Some things on NANOG _never_ change. Trawling for trolls I must be.
If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial. And you
should go ahead and plan that migration.
As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy
stay intact,
In ARIN you have a policy to request IPv6 PI. So what is the problem ?
Regards,
Jordi
De: Christian Kuhtz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:37:23 +
Para: Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Donald Stahl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kevin Oberman
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:15 PM
To: Stephen Wilcox
Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:42:47
Some weeks ago I started to work in documenting how to setup 6to4 and Teredo
relays/servers in several platforms for the afripv6-discuss mailing list.
There are many 6to4 relays already, but it becomes even more important to
have them where the bandwidth is more expensive, because it avoids
steve. multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your
upstreams
Hey, that's a very simplistic IGP point of view !!
I'm afraid I disagree :)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
steve.
steve. multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your
Hi Christian,
I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and
destruction ov DFZ are correlated.
If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing
table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN
would only
Christian,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
If you want to emulate IPv4
Given IPv6 is IPv4 with 96 more bits (or, if you prefer 16 more bits
from the ISP perspective), why would you assume there is a choice?
and destroy the DFZ,
I'm not sure what destroy the DFZ
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:35:09 BST, Neil J. McRae said:
I remember in the past an excellent system using Sesame Street characters
names.
This only works in small shops. If you have more routers than muppets, you
have a problem. Had a lab once where we named machines after colors. That
hit some
Hi Steve,
Sure... I've never mention 3 STM4... the example said 3 carriers.
OK, you may do it with communities, but if you advertise all in just one
prefix, even with communities, I find it very difficult to control the
trafic when it pass through 2 or more AS (it may be quite easy for the
13 matches
Mail list logo