It would be a good idea to have a bug database that accessible to paying
support customers.
Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications
j...@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax
On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:51:57AM
On 01/24/10 18:53, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message202705b1001241834l5b1911bat97ee2130f632f...@mail.gmail.com, Jorge
Amodio writes:
Good point, tomorrow/today we'll start seeing what gets broken and
hopefully why.
Regards.
Jorge
I don't expect to see much until the last root server (J)
On 24/01/2010 02:44, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/23/2010 8:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond MM,
you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with MMs before you
ran out of /64s.
Did somebody once say something like that about Class C
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Mathias Seiler
mathias.sei...@mironet.ch wrote:
Hi
In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know
what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard.
I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305,843,009,213,693,952
/64s. This is enough to fill over seven Lake Eries. The total amount
of ipv6 address
On 23/01/10 19:52, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
As for ATM... The part that totally baffles me about the use of ATM on
xDSL lines is that I have never, ever, ever seen an xDSL line carrying
more than one ATM VC. OK,
Good Morning!
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 05:45
To: Andy Davidson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
There
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
You can give your peers funny names, like 2001:db8::dead:beef ;)
- Prone to
From: Mathias Seiler [mailto:mathias.sei...@mironet.ch]
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit
Hi
As part of staged, incremental deployment of DNSSEC in the root zone L-Root
will begin serving a Deliberately Unvalidatable Root Zone (DURZ) after the
completion of its scheduled maintenance at 2010-01-27 1800 UTC - 2000 UTC
Please contact L-Root NOC via n...@dns.icann.org or T:
In a message written on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:14:06PM +0100, Mathias Seiler
wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
You
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the simple
2^128 math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things:
*) 2^61 is still very, very big. That is the number of IPv6 network
segments available within 2000::/3.
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
While I agree with parts of what you are
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:01 PM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:08
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126
3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we DON'T control both sides? /64
4) Loopback? /128
Within our /48 we've carved
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uiuc.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we control both sides? /126
3) Autoconfigured hosts not-possible, we
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
snip
2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering
perspective, IPv6 is really only
From: TJ trej...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
snip
2^128 is a very big
On 26/01/2010, at 8:50 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
This is what we have planned:
2620::xx00::/41 AS-NETx-2620-0-xx00
2620::xx00::/44 Infrastructure
2620::xx01::/48
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+ rDNS on a bit boundary
You can give your peers funny names,
On Jan 25, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, TJ wrote:
While I agree with parts of what you are saying - that using the simple
2^128 math can be misleading, let's be clear on a few things:
*) 2^61 is still very, very big. That is the
I want to thank everyone who responded on, and off-list to this thread.
I've garnered valuable information that ranges within the technical,
business applicability, to 'common-sense' arenas.
There is a lot of information that I have to go over now, and a few
select pieces of software that I'm
On Jan 25, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/25/2010 4:45 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 09:12:49AM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever
use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that
2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering
perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64
is still a very big number.
An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks. That's not
very big once you start planning a human-friendly
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
2^128 is a very big number. However, from a network engineering
perspective, IPv6 is really only 64bits of network address space. 2^64
is still a very big number.
An end-user assignment /48 is really only 2^16 networks.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote:
Ok let's summarize:
/64:
+ Sticks to the way IPv6 was designed (64 bits host part)
+ Probability of renumbering very low
+ simpler for ACLs and the like
+
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once you start planning a practical address plan, IPv6 isn't as big as
everybody keeps saying...
It's more than big enough for any deployment I've seen so far with plenty
of room to spare.
Oh good! so the us-DoD's /10
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
An ISP allocation is /32, which is only 2^16 /48s. Again, not that big.
That's just the starting minimum. Many ISPs have already gotten much larger
IPv6 allocations.
Understood. Again, the problem for me is medium/large
We use 5 PVCs for the IP video and one for Internet. Not as uncommon as you
think.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:53 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /31 for router links
Mark Smith
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:50:35 -0500
Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uiuc.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Our numbering plan is this:
1) Autoconfigured hosts possible? /64
2) Autoconfigured hosts
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:15:55 -0500
TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tim Durack [mailto:tdur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 14:03
To: TJ
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links
snip
2^128 is a very big
On 1/25/2010 20:06, Mark Smith wrote:
This from people who can probably do decimal to binary conversion
and back again for IPv4 subnetting in their head and are proud of
it. Surely IPv6 hex to binary and back again can be the new party
trick? :-)
Hehe. Decimal - binary in your head? I
32 matches
Mail list logo
