On 23 jul 2010, at 01:33, Matthew Walster wrote:
On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band al...@ripe.net wrote:
There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely
Home wifi router vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work, so of
course in your scenario they simply implement NAT66 (whether or not IETF
folks think it is a good idea) however they see fit and nobody calls.
This will greatly help in deploying IPv6...here is another NAT because
However, even then, there is no guarantee that the common denominator CPE for
this service wont have NAT66 features, maybe even turned on by default.
I've tested a lot of CPE's and haven't come across one that supports NAT66,
they all do support DHCPv6 prefix delegation and actually most of
Well said.
One more reason is transition mechanisms.
For example, 6to4, TBs, manual tunnels, those are just a few examples, which
use/provide /48.
We have today many customers using /48, which have already their own
internal addressing plans, or manual subnets configured internally.
Are you
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
In all reality:
1.NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful inspection provides
security, NAT just mangles addresses.
You know that, I know that and (hopefully) all people on this list know
that. But NAT == security was and still is sold by
On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the IPv6 customer.
IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now.
Yes please I believe that what Michael have mentioned by the mpls NNI is
actually the RFC 2547bis Option 10A
And yes please as Chris mentioned this Option 10A is used mainly between two
different administrative domains (ISPs) because of the lack of trust and maybe
a sort of configuration
Owen DeLong wrote:
Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to
make NAT66 unnecessary?
The thing is, IPv6 is 128 bits of address space, so a /64 for your home
*really* should be enough to have 1 machine online at a time.
It'll be a lot easier to change the
And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so
let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to
redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the
bits for routing ?
And so on, of course, where is the limit ? You should
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so
let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to
redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the
bits for routing ?
I *really* don't
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
The ISP new business is not just about more bandwidth but
On 7/23/2010 9:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
If you are going to go multi-VLAN data plane (as opposed to multi-label)
then 10A will cause you scaling issues as you'll need multiple BGP peers
(or static routing),
I'd prefer to use
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kulmala-l3vpn-interas-option-d-02
which already has implementations, i.e
On Jul 23, 2010, at 2:50 AM, Jens Link wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
In all reality:
1. NAT has nothing to do with security. Stateful inspection provides
security, NAT just mangles addresses.
You know that, I know that and (hopefully) all people on this list know
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
I have no problems with giving the customer several
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
more or less forced into these scenarios by IPv4 exhaustion.
Hi Brian,
Respectfully, anyone betting on what the ISPs will be
Yes please -option d also known as option AB
-it's the same as option b with addition of VRFs on the ASBRs
-it might as well be viewed as a natural step between opt a and opt b
-opt ab offers the same great control over the routes advertised between ASes
as opt a -though provides for better
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Vitkovsky, Adam avitkov...@emea.att.comwrote:
Yes please -option d also known as option AB
-it's the same as option b with addition of VRFs on the ASBRs
-it might as well be viewed as a natural step between opt a and opt b
-opt ab offers the same great
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
several customers that don't require public address space that could be
moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal
liabilities..
Hello,
From our past experience this can be accomplished without issue as long as you
have good log records and tracking in place. Ensure you have long-term
retention for the logs to cover yourself.
Many ISP's are moving to this sort of environment simply due to the reasoning
stated.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:11, Positively Optimistic
positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com wrote:
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
several customers that don't require public address space that could be
moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to
We get them pretty often.
Always the same email with a different movie and IP. If its one of our
hotspots or open AP's. We just ignore it for the most part. If its a
res/commercial customer we contact them and let them know someone is
watching. Never has gone past the cookie cutter email we get
On Jul 23, 2010, at 1:36 18PM, khatfi...@socllc.net wrote:
Hello,
From our past experience this can be accomplished without issue as long as
you have good log records and tracking in place.
Do the complaints you receive include port numbers? Do you log the translation
for every TCP
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG and
the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For historical
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Positively Optimistic
positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com wrote:
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
several customers that don't require public address space that could be
moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Funny how so much concern is given to eliminating the possibility of end users
returning for more space, yet for ISP's we have no real concern with what will
happen when they near depletion of their /32 what with /48s
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small sensors, actuators and so.
I have no problems with
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:59:41 -0400, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
wrote:
Do the complaints you receive include port numbers?
I've never seen one that did. I've not even seen one with an exact
timestamp.
You would require the src and dst ip *and* port, plus the near exact
I think it's
more reasonable to describe solutions for them than to rule their
problem out of order.
In that, you are surely correct. But frankly, having read 4.3 I have a
hard time taking it seriously as an early-stage IPv6 transition
mechanism. It reads to me like pie in the sky.
On 23 Jul 2010, at 1:40, Ricky Beam wrote:
[...]
Do the complaints you receive include port numbers?
I've never seen one that did. I've not even seen one with an exact
timestamp.
You would require the src and dst ip *and* port, plus the near exact
timestamp of when the connection
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:38 PM
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
Home wifi router vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work,
so
Your subpoena is overly broad. Go back and specify port number and
timestamp. And read draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02, section
10.
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Lee
-Original Message-
From: Positively Optimistic [mailto:positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 23 21:11:35 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:09 AM, André Edwards wrote:
St. Maarten
Damn. That's next door. :-)
Cheers,
RAH
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Positively Optimistic
positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com wrote:
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have
several customers that don't require public address space that could be
moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 17:53 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
And I'm not saying to forget about what we have learn with DHCP, in
fact DHCPv6 has many new and good features, but for many reasons,
autonconfiguration is good enough, and much more simple.
[...]
For our scenarios DHCPv6 is
Anyone have a good NetApp contact for the Bay Area (East Bay, to be exact).
I called their line today to try to get a quote (long story, but this
is not an opportunity for a VAR), but their voice mail thingee kept
punting me off and I never got to talk to a real person.
Thanks in advance
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:18:39 +0100
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the IPv6 customer.
IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:26:43 -0700
Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it
39 matches
Mail list logo
