Will there be a move to change the name of NewNOG to NANOG now that the IP has
been transferred, or will this be more like a DBA situation?
- Brian J.
-Original Message-
From: Steven Feldman [mailto:feld...@newnog.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:12 AM
To:
I can't speak for the board, but as I understand it, it will probably
be DBA (doing business as). The expense of going back and redoing all
the work is just too much. Hopefully, we'll only see NewNOG used on
legal documents from now on
Dan
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Brian Johnson
We will keep using NewNOG as a legal entity to do the contracting, so that name
will not be really prominent. Changing legal names is expensive and our
mission is to be frugal.
Nanog remains the brand known to the community for communications, for members,
for lists and for conferences.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:35 AM, laperriere.syl...@gmail.com wrote:
We will keep using NewNOG as a legal entity to do the contracting, so that
name will not be really prominent. Changing legal names is expensive and our
mission is to be frugal.
Nanog remains the brand known to the community
Also not for the board, but it's also likely to be a DBA because of the 501(c)3
election process, which was initiated under the NewNOG name.
Regards,
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206)
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Example: if you give administrators the option of putting a router
address in a DHCP option, they will do so and some fraction of the time,
this will be the wrong address and things don't work. If you let
Just need to add default route in there and make dhcpd do RA
then the user can turn off RA on their routers and not care
that DHCPv6 doesn't include default router.
Having a DHCP server generate RA messages kind of defeats the point of
having RA messages in the first place, resulting in
On 2 feb 2011, at 23:40, Lamar Owen wrote:
I can explain everything you need to know about how to run IPv6 BGP, RIP and
OSPF in an hour and a half. Did that at a RIPE meeting some years ago.
Setting up Apache to use IPv6 is one line of config. BIND two or three (not
counting IPv6 reverse
Some applications will still require ALG functionality (or modification)
to manage the state in the stateful firewall.
This is where I think the end to end mantra has lead us astray.
The users do not care, they just want stuff to work despite security
and other real world complexities that
++
On 30Dec2010, at 12.47, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Josh Smith wrote:
While certainly not the best stuff made I've found the ubiquiti
equipment to be very nice for the price and have a few of their AP's
which have been in service 24x7 for a couple of years now.
On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:47 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Having a DHCP server generate RA messages kind of defeats the point of having
RA messages
in the first place, resulting in loss of robustness, and now a new mode of
failure.
And by new here you mean exactly the same mode of failure that's
This is from a 3% to 4% estimate of telecomms and datacomms in the
overall Egyptian economy.
The OEDC communique notes that attracting foreign investment may now
be more difficult. (Is there anyone not looking at regional alternatives?)
Source:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:22:34PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
End user, a /48 will cost you $1,250 one-time and then it's part of
your usual $100/year that you would be
paying if you had an ASN or IPv4 space anyway.
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
* Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo:
The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like
this ?
Unicast addresses must be located in at least a /64 subnet. No doubt
there are vendors which enforce this (perhaps even in the ASICs), so
deviating from this rule will result in some
On 03/02/2011 12:49, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure-enduser.html
(other than because they can, I mean).
That's if you deal with the RIPE NCC directly. If you get your direct
assignments via a LIR, the cost
* Ray Soucy:
Every time I see this question it' usually related to a fundamental
misunderstanding of IPv6 and the attempt to apply v4 logic to v6.
True, you have to ignore more than a decade of IPv4 protocol
development and resort to things like pre-VLSM networking.
That said. Any size
You must be kiddin'... You're considering going through this mess again
in a few decades?
I'm mildly surprised if you think we're going to be done with *this*
mess in a few decades.
Rob
I don't mean to rain on your parade here...oh wait, yeah, I do actually.
I have an SGI Indigo (MIPS R3000/25 with 32MB RAM baby, it's a
screamer!) that still runs with no problems. Show me an eighteen year
old router that's still up and running. The Dell hardware we ran NT4
Server on for
* Nick Hilliard:
On 03/02/2011 12:49, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure-enduser.html
(other than because they can, I mean).
That's if you deal with the RIPE NCC directly. If you get your direct
assignments
On Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:11:35PM +, Florian Weimer wrote:
Has RIPE charged a LIR for their independent resources yet? I don't
think so. Therefore, comparisons with ARIN are a bit premature.
Yes - we got charged in our 2011 invoice.
Simon
--
Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation *
* Simon Lockhart:
On Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:11:35PM +, Florian Weimer wrote:
Has RIPE charged a LIR for their independent resources yet? I don't
think so. Therefore, comparisons with ARIN are a bit premature.
Yes - we got charged in our 2011 invoice.
Very interesting. Are you sure
On 2/2/2011 11:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
This is a well-examined problem: well known unicast listener addresses
are a bad, bad idea.
Is this why the root isn't just using well-known? :)
Jack
On 03/02/2011 14:15, Jack Bates wrote:
Is this why the root isn't just using well-known?
No - that's pretty much the only situation where you have a technical
requirement to hardcode IP address, and there's basically no way of getting
around it.
Besides, it's completely different to having
102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
179/8 LACNIC 2011-02whois.lacnic.net ALLOCATED
185/8 RIPE NCC 2011-02whois.ripe.netALLOCATED
Anyone else getting Error establishing a database connection trying to
bring this up?
Thanks
Sameer
-Original Message-
From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org list
Subject: Significant Announcement (re: IPv4) 3 February -
Once upon a time, Sameer Khosla skho...@neutraldata.com said:
Anyone else getting Error establishing a database connection trying to
bring this up?
It was posted to /. this morning, so it is probably overloaded (I didn't
even try).
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network
I think they were under a TCP-SYN attack :)
The video was super choppy from here and I have bandwidth to burn at this time
of the day. A little disappointing, but I'm sure (fingers crossed) someone will
have a clean recording of it that they will make available.
- Brian J.
-Original
The Windows Media stream was working for me (the others were giving the
database error), but it's all over now.
There's a press conference at 10:00am EST, but I'm not sure if it's going to
be webcast or not.
Scott.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Sameer Khosla skho...@neutraldata.comwrote:
It's been a fun ride, adios good friend.
-wil
On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
179/8 LACNIC
It didn't work too bad. Does anyone know why it was pretty much over at 9:30,
when they said it would start? Did they start a half-hour early or something?
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (800)578-6381,
Still a few LEGACY in the status column ;-)
-M
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
I think they were under a TCP-SYN attack :)
The video was super choppy from here and I have bandwidth to burn at this
time of the day. A little disappointing, but I'm sure (fingers crossed)
someone will have a clean recording of it that they will make available.
I saw that also. Switched
Hi,
The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of five /8
IPv4 blocks: one to each RIR, in February 2011. You can find the updated IANA
IPv4 registry at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
http://www.nro.net/supplemental/icann-nro-low-bandwidth
-M
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote:
I think they were under a TCP-SYN attack :)
The video was super choppy from here and I have bandwidth to burn at this
time of the day. A little disappointing,
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Randy Carpenter wrote:
It didn't work too bad. Does anyone know why it was pretty much over at
9:30, when they said it would start? Did they start a half-hour early or
something?
I think that was just the ceremony for handing out the last /8s and it
went very quickly.
And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between private
institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them realizing that they
have a marketable and valuable thing. We may all say it won't happen, we may
even say we don't want it to happen, or that it shouldn't be
News conference starts now
-M
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.netwrote:
It didn't work too bad. Does anyone know why it was pretty much over at
9:30, when they said it would start? Did they start a half-hour early or
something?
-Randy
--
| Randy
I will rebut in-line.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Israel [mailto:da...@otd.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:57 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: quietly
On 2/2/2011 5:42 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
I must have missed something. Why would u do NAT in IPv6?
1) To allow
On 2/2/2011 8:38 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
From the main section on https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html:
... ISPs with both IPv4 resources and IPv6 resources pay the larger of the two
fees.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the waiver stuff.
The concept of v4 to v6 addressing
The subject says it all... anyone with experience with a setup like
this ?
Unicast addresses must be located in at least a /64 subnet. No doubt
there are vendors which enforce this (perhaps even in the ASICs), so
deviating from this rule will result in some lock-in.
The Juniper and
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing scale,
though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves 1 rank higher in
the v6 model compared to v4, which effectively doubles your price anyways. :)
Not sure I
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I won't run an edge-network that *isn't* NATted; my internal
machines
have no business having publicly routable addresses. No one has
*ever*
provided me with a serviceable
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP version.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Wil Schultz wrote:
It's been a fun ride, adios
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
It's not transparent to:
Application Developers
Operating Systems
Home Gateway Developers
Consumer Electronics Developers
Technical Support departments
My users who are trying to talk to your users using applications that
are
- Original Message -
On 2/2/2011 8:38 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
From the main section on
https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html:
... ISPs with both IPv4 resources and IPv6 resources pay the larger
of the two fees.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the waiver stuff.
On 3 Feb 2011, at 14:49, Igor Ybema wrote:
I think they were under a TCP-SYN attack :)
The video was super choppy from here and I have bandwidth to burn at this
time of the day. A little disappointing, but I'm sure (fingers crossed)
someone will have a clean recording of it that they will
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of using its
network to send pro-government text messages.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694
Here is their PR
http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/press.html
Note
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between
private institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them
realizing that they have a marketable and valuable thing. We may all say
it won't happen, we may even say we
On 2/3/2011 12:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Notice how the application was able to poke the holes in both sides
because it easily knew the address and port number information since
it isn't modified. Both firewalls think that the secondary channel is
an outbound connection on both sides.
And
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
179/8 LACNIC 2011-02whois.lacnic.net ALLOCATED
185/8
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Randy Carpenter wrote:
It didn't work too bad. Does anyone know why it was pretty much over at
9:30, when they said it would start? Did they start a half-hour early or
something?
I think that was just the ceremony
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP version.
Supposedly[*] transfers
On 2/3/2011 8:20 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 03/02/2011 14:15, Jack Bates wrote:
Is this why the root isn't just using well-known?
No - that's pretty much the only situation where you have a technical
requirement to hardcode IP address, and there's basically no way of
getting around it.
On 01/02/2011 13:23, John Curran wrote:
FYI - Some people in this community may want to watch this event (either in
person or via webcast)
I see Mr. Kolkman is involved in this press conference, and can therefore
assume that Bert - working behind the scenes as he usually does - is fully
(apologies to REM)
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP version.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 08:11, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com wrote:
Our classified networks aren't ever going to be connected to anything
but themselves either, and they need sane local addressing. Some of
them are a single room with a few machines, some of them are entire
facilities with
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Max Larson Henry wrote:
News conference starts now
The exhaustion has made CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/03/internet.addresses.gone/
Marshall
-M
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.netwrote:
It didn't work
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Alex Rubenstein a...@corp.nac.net wrote:
And we have yet to see what happens with backend transactions between private
institutions that have large blocks laying around, and them realizing that
they have a marketable and valuable thing. We may all say it won't
If you're on a DoD classified network that spans multiple facilities (as
a contractor we only get access to certain ones, and only certain hosts
are allowed to access them). Self contained networks are our problem.
Jamie
-Original Message-
From: TJ [mailto:trej...@gmail.com]
Sent:
Folks,
Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3. On February
3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson (aka The Big Bopper) died
in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized that day as The Day The Music Died
in his 1971 hit, American Pie.
340 'undecillion', what a great word!!! Number!!!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:t...@americafree.tv]
Sent: 03 February 2011 15:57
To: Max Larson Henry
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Significant Announcement (re: IPv4) 3 February - Watch it Live!
On Feb 3,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/2/2011 8:38 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
From the main section on https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html:
... ISPs with both IPv4 resources and IPv6 resources pay the larger of the
two fees.
It is not mentioned anywhere in
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Brian Johnson wrote:
3) To give all your outbound sessions a mutual appearance, so as to
confound those attempting to build a profile of your activity.
So this goes back to security through obscurity. OK.
There's an awful lot of inertia in the NAPT/firewall keeps our
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to
On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush to
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
The point I'm trying to get across to you is that your security does
NOT come from NAT. It comes from the stateful inspection mechanism and
the policies you set within that stateful inspection mechanism. The
unfortunate problem is
On 2/3/11 7:36 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
(apologies to REM)
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become
less stable as lots of orgs rush
- Original Message -
From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
There's an awful lot of inertia in the NAPT/firewall keeps our hosts
safe from the internet mentality. Sure, a stateful firewall can be
configured allow all outbound traffic and only connected/related
inbound.
When someone
On Feb 3, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing
scale, though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves
1 rank higher in the v6
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become
irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and
On 3 feb 2011, at 17:16, Jon Lewis wrote:
When someone breaks or shuts off that filter, traffic through the NAPT
firewall stops working. On the stateful firewall with public IPs on both
sides, everything works...including the traffic you didn't want.
People are going to want NAT66...and
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's
become irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and
things become less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a
For all you folks mourning the demise of IPv4, could you PLEASE
transfer those old, used, not useful to you anymore IPv4 blocks
to me ... PLEASE? Pretty Please?
just saying.
--bill
The concept of v4 to v6 addressing scale doesn't match the pricing
scale, though. Generally, I expect to see most ISPs find themselves
1 rank higher in the v6 model compared to v4, which effectively
doubles your price anyways. :)
Jack
Actually, so far, most ISPs are finding
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. under
contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is difficult or
impossible to enforce.
Transfers are permitted in the ARIN region per the community
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3 feb 2011, at 17:16, Jon Lewis wrote:
When someone breaks or shuts off that filter, traffic through the NAPT firewall
stops working. On the stateful firewall with public IPs on both sides,
everything works...including the traffic you
Seth,
What sort of ISP do your not technically inclined parents have that
offers native ipv6? :-)
--
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber: juice...@gmail.com
phone: 304.237.9369(c)
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 2/3/11 7:36 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
There is also another reason for NAT44 or NAT66 in the corporate world that has
been missed in these conversations. It is very common to NAT44 when connected
via extranets to another company via an b2b provider such as TNS or BTRadianz.
Not everything goes over the net. NAT44 (especially
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion,
463 sextillion, 463 quintillion, 374 quadrillion, 607 trillion, 431 billion,
768 million, 211 thousand, 456
Todd Christell
Manager Network Architecture and Support
On 2/3/2011 10:30 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hm, if you turn off the NAT66 function, wouldn't the traffic pass
through unhindered, too?
Only if the ISP is routing your inside address space to the firewall.
Or do you propose to make IPv6 home gateways the same way IPv4 home
gateways
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks,
Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3. On February
3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson (aka The Big Bopper)
died in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized that day as The Day The Music
On 3 feb 2011, at 17:40, Jon Lewis wrote:
Hm, if you turn off the NAT66 function, wouldn't the traffic pass through
unhindered, too?
Outbound traffic would. Inbound, if on the inside, you're using IPv6 space
that's not globally routed, won't. Just like what happens now with NAPT with
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. under
contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is difficult or
impossible to enforce.
Transfers are
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:04:29AM -0500, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Folks,
Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3.
On February 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson
(aka The Big Bopper) died in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized
that day as The
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually,
holders of large legacy
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
reclaimed and reissued.
Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to reclaim legacy address blocks
that RIR didn't issue? Without that legal authority, is any RIR
Yes, but unless that ipv6 that isn't globally routed is NAT66 to the outside
world, then it wouldn't have external access.
-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Folks,
Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3. On February
3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson (aka The Big Bopper)
died in a plane crash. Don McLean immortalized that day as
- Original Message -
My guesses as to who gets what:
102/8 - APNIC
103/8 - LACNIC
104/8 - AfriNIC
179/8 - RIPE NCC
185/8 - ARIN
I couldn't have been more wrong :-)
I guess alphabetical order won rather than neighboring blocks :-)
-Randy
- Original Message -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
On 3 feb 2011, at 17:16, Jon Lewis wrote:
When someone breaks or shuts off that filter, traffic through the
NAPT firewall stops working. On the stateful firewall with public
IPs on both sides, everything
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Max Larson Henry wrote:
News conference starts now
The exhaustion has made CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/03/internet.addresses.gone/
You mean
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
reclaimed and reissued.
Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, to reclaim legacy address blocks
that RIR didn't
Anyone have slides for Part 2 of the IPv6 Technology Overview from Cisco?
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog51/abstracts.php?pt=MTcyMiZuYW5vZzUxnm=nanog51
Part 1 is there but Part 2 seems to be missing.
Thanks!
--chip
--
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc
I'm perfectly happy with an IPv6 network that only has rational people on it
while those who insist on NAT stay behind on IPv4.
There's an inherent conflict between your wish here and the desire to
bring IPv6 to the masses...
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
I want PI for my house IPv6 address. :(
Jack
On 2/3/2011 10:48 AM, Todd Christell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion,
463 sextillion, 463 quintillion, 374 quadrillion, 607 trillion, 431 billion,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:07 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be
reclaimed and reissued.
Is any RIR authorized, in a legal
OK so the argument is the 'community' is ARIN's source of legal power or is the
corporate laws of the State of Virginia?
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can
In a message written on Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:48:45PM +0300, Alexandre
Snarskii wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:04:29AM -0500, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Somehow, it is appropriate that this should happen on February 3.
On February 3, 1959, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and JP Richardson
(aka
John,
I would hope that if some ARIN policy is enacted there would be
some way to differentiate between organizations, like the one I belong
to, that have provided this kind of service to customers for a number of
years and organizations looking to take advantage of the new scarcity.
We
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this to continue and spread.
1 - 100 of 259 matches
Mail list logo
