On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 02:19:48PM -0800, John Adams wrote:
Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location
data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
It's not possible to hide location. Anonymity and efficient transport
don't mix. This
Hello!
Could somebody provide me peering contact for AS12715 (Jazz Telecom
S.A.)? I see they have OPEN peering policy at AMS-IX and peering
contact b...@jazztel.com but there are no replies from this email.
Maybe somebody knows private contact?
Thanks.
--
Network Department
Alfa Telecom
Hi,
You could try n...@jazztel.com instead, hopefully they'll reply.
Aris Lambrianidis
AMS-IX B.V.
http://www.ams-ix.net/
On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Network Department r...@alfatelecom.cz wrote:
Hello!
Could somebody provide me peering contact for AS12715 (Jazz Telecom
S.A.)? I see
I sent email to this address but this is group contact email and I
don't know when I'll be answered. I'm still interesting in direct
contact email =)
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Aris Lambrianidis
aristidis.lambriani...@ams-ix.net wrote:
Hi,
You could try n...@jazztel.com
My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today
is unintentional.
almost all ip traffic is unintentional. i want my mtv. money for
nothin' and the chicks are free.
from a friend in a big broadband provider
when the average consumer (real) broadband connection
Am 26.11.2012 11:01, schrieb Network Department:
Could somebody provide me peering contact for AS12715 (Jazz Telecom
S.A.)? I see they have OPEN peering policy at AMS-IX and peering contact
b...@jazztel.com but there are no replies from this email.
The address you mentioned is actually very
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Ammar Salih wrote:
Thank you everyone, I appreciate your feedback and will try to summarize few
points in one email to avoid duplication .. apologies if I missed any.
This is not data that should be sent on every packet. It becomes
redundant.
1- It does not
On Nov 26, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
almost all ip traffic is unintentional.
Sure. But my point is the notion that observed IPv6 traffic volumes are due to
deliberate migration is not correct.
when the average consumer (real) broadband connection becomes v6 capable,
about 40%
What do you mean with deliberate migration?
Users do not care and they will never have a deliberate migration.
However ISPs do, if the user have IPv6 it is because the ISP deliberate
migrate to v6 by enable it in their backbone, networks and user's CPEs.
IMHO if
On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Users do not care and they will never have a deliberate migration.
I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most
contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some industry
imperative to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in
most contexts seems to be predicated upon the notion that there is some
industry imperative to light up network with IPv6. My point is that
there is not.
We'll all be better
On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why is that a significant question?
It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative
*importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the users and to the content/app/services
networks.
We are not yet at the point where
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing
kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 06:25:47AM -0800, Damian Menscher wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing
kame. To my
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing
kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content.
Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most
compelling
Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to
switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of
ideas: pésimo. I couldn't find a similar one in English without using
foul words :-)
In
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
There is none. Why is it needed? We need IPv6 to make the Internet
continue working and scale for the future. We don't need IPv6 to solve an
individuals need, we need it for the long
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:56:52PM -0200, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to
I agree. You need to put it into L2, and the core usage would
be for wireless meshes.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
apologies, I forgot the emoticons after my last comment. i really did mean
it in jest... I don't think VZ has harnessed weather-changing-powers.
(yet).
Well, they ARE The Phone Company!
Makes me want to watch The
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 26, 2012 5:54 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why is that a significant question?
It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative
*importance* of IPv6
I have a CALEA appliance from BearHill that I 'rent'. It has been in my
network for years. I'm looking for other alternative solutions for CALEA
compliance with a small ISP. It looks like OpenCalea is a dead project.
What is everyone else using?
My current solution is $1k/month and I
Hi,
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing
kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content.
Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ - that's definitely the most
compelling
On 11/26/12 15:53, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Again, where're the compelling IPv6-only content/apps/services?
To answer your rhetorical question, http://www.kame.net/ has a dancing
kame. To my knowledge, that's the most compelling IPv6-only content.
Don't forget http://loopsofzen.co.uk/ -
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
apologies, I forgot the emoticons after my last comment. i really
did mean
it in jest... I don't think VZ has harnessed weather-changing-powers.
(yet).
Well, they ARE The Phone Company!
On Mon November 26 2012 09:38, Matthew Crocker wrote:
I have a CALEA appliance from BearHill that I 'rent'. It has been in my
network for years. I'm looking for other alternative solutions for CALEA
compliance with a small ISP. It looks like OpenCalea is a dead project.
What is everyone
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who
want to sustain their business.
I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part.
Nope. Nobody will leave money on the table by alienating users.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who
want to sustain their business.
I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the
On 11/26/2012 8:04 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
apologies, I forgot the emoticons after my last comment. i really
did mean
it in jest... I don't think VZ has harnessed weather-changing-powers.
Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators
who
want to sustain their business.
I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part.
Operators are all free to choose their
We have numbers to share.
We have performed two experiments at two different events LACNIC held
this year:
- June in Port-Au-Prince (~110 attendees)
- October in Montevideo (~400 attendees)
The question was: What is the relation between IPv4 and IPv6 traffic in
a fully dual-stacked network?.
- Original Message -
From: Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 LACNIC will be performing a system
migration to a new release of the RPKI system. We will take the
opportunity to also perform a key rollover of LACNIC's RPKI trust
anchor. The new TAL
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net
wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators
who want to
On Nov 26, 2012, at 06:56 , Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to
switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of
ideas:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 04:57 , Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Users do not care and they will never have a deliberate migration.
I understand this. However, the way that IPv6 migration is discussed in most
contexts seems
Careful with followups, please, am sending this to multiple lists.
---rsk
- Forwarded message -
? From: Barry Leiba barryleiba at computer.org
? To: imap5 at ietf.org, imapext at ietf.org, imap-protocol at
u.washington.edu, imap-use at u.washington.edu
? Date: Mon,
Compulsion won't come from IPv6-only content. It will come from IPv6-only
users.
Any content/apps/service providers who fail to provide for this fact before we
reach
that point are making a bet-the-business gamble on the theory that NAT44(4...)
will somehow scale well beyond what is likely IMHO.
Owen DeLong wrote:
less than 60% of the internet will still be IPv4 at that time.
Do you mean IPv4 or IPv4 Only?
Because unless the remaining percentage of IPv4 is noticeably less
usable, it will still not incur any user demand, and IPv6 is still a
cost mitigation strategy, and unless
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:56:52PM -0200, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to
I agree. You
This also naively assumes that wireless network topology correlates with
geographic location. Any radio engineer (or cell phone user) can explain
why that doesn't work.
On 26 November 2012 17:36, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
drives from San Francisco to LA typing all the way on their smartphone
data connection, for example.
To the extent that you may apply IP ranges to wider geographical
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of
devices attached to the network (never mind the number of things causing that
rate to accelerate[1]) makes IPv6 inevitable at this point, you really aren't
paying
On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
NAT is bad.
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I'm unsure whether or not this is
the prevalent view amongst those who control the pursestrings within network
operators, however.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:46:33PM -0500, Harald Koch wrote:
This also naively assumes that wireless network topology correlates with
geographic location. Any radio engineer (or cell phone user) can explain
why that doesn't work.
Serval has about 200 m line of sight range. In general
LoS
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow us
to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in homes
that are IPv4-only, but it certainly doesn't reduce or remove the imperative.
I agree
On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
Unfortunately most people that actually deploy and support applications can't
make the math come out right when the access providers don't provide a
path to 99% of the paying customers, then do just about everything they can
to hobble bypass
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Harald Koch c...@pobox.com wrote:
On 26 November 2012 17:36, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Suppose you have a large single-owner mesh network, such as a folks
walking around with cell phones. If you want them to have a stable
layer 3 address (and you do)
On 11/26/2012 03:18 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Apple and Microsoft are application developers as well as OS vendors. How much
of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their application
development organizations? How much of a priority do you think IPv6
capabilities are to their
Hi,
Could someone from Cloudmark please contact me off list.
I've been trying to get someone from sales to call me back for 3 weeks with no
response.
Thanks
John Zettlemoyer
On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:53, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
It is significant because
Why*) do you believe it is important to waste everybody's time with these kinds
of arguments?
We have seen your kind of thinking. First, the Internet was never going to
replace X.25/Frame
On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host
operating systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support
lighting
v6 support up that I can think of.
Where are the *deployments*, though?
And
On 11/26/2012 03:18 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Apple and Microsoft are application developers as well as OS vendors. How
much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are to their application
development organizations? How much of a priority do you think IPv6
capabilities are to
On 11/26/2012 04:24 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Er, uh, huh? v6 has been available forever on the usual suspect host operating
systems, and most server side apps don't need to do much to support lighting
v6 support up that I can think of.
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
We have seen your kind of thinking.
You totally mischaracterize my 'kind of thinking'. My entire career arc has
been that of a technological evangelist. Yes, I think there's a lot that's
wrong with IPv6, but it appears that it's the only
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and
foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream
from their ISP's.
It's hugely problematic to accomplish internally, never mind for external
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
Have you looked at the current Apple software? It pretty much just works
on IPv6.
Yes, but it doesn't do or enable anything via IPv6 that it doesn't do or enable
via IPv4.
This also automatically brings along IPv6 capabilities.
On 11/26/2012 04:38 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Not on the server side that I can see. It's a network problem first and
foremost, and starts by having the excuse that they can't get v6 upstream from
their ISP's.
It's hugely problematic to
On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:51 , George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
drives from San Francisco to LA typing all the way on their smartphone
data
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
If they don't commit, the game of chicken continues.
Right - so, what new capabilities/economies of scale/essential conveniences are
made possible by IPv6 but not IPv4, pour encourager les autres?
This is not a rhetorical question. I
On Nov 26, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
Have you looked at the current Apple software? It pretty much just works
on IPv6.
Yes, but it doesn't do or enable anything via IPv6 that it doesn't do or
enable
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:51 , George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
drives from San
On Nov 26, 2012, at 15:10 , Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
CGN does not scale and cannot scale. At best, it's a hack that might allow
us to cope with a few years of transition while there are still devices in
homes that are
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Interesting. All the IPv6 capable carriers I talk to are only
gatewaying/proxying to IPv4 for things unreachable via IPv6.
Which is pretty much everything on the Internet.
If you've got an IPv6 capable cell phone on an IPv6 capable mobile
On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
Those content/services/applications will only be reachable via IPv6 because
that is all that can be deployed without truly horrendous and costly
mismanagement of IPv4 address space.
Our views differ in that it is my belief that said truly
On 11/26/12, Alex dreamwave...@yahoo.com wrote:
This would be great for troubleshooting things...I agree, but other than
that it would create a whole new plethora of privacy concerns.
Just about every new technology, IP itself included has privacy concerns,
related to it; which is really just
If there are eyeballs from ATT's postmaster group here, would you
please contact me off list regarding a rather major blocking issue.
Thanks.
Regards,
Annette
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Again, all the attention being lavished upon CGNs and 444 and whatnot
are quite interesting indicators of perceived priorities.
The problem is that CGN and NAT444 works with todays devices, whereas
IPv6 does not (thinking mobile devices and
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact,
both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large.
But I'm pretty sure that both iPhones and Androids are pretty happy
about being in v6 land since I see them
On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
The problem is that CGN and NAT444 works with todays devices, whereas IPv6
does not (thinking mobile devices and residential CPEs).
Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and that
all this CGN and 444 stuff
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and
that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that
I'm a fool for doubting all these (to me) wildly overoptimistic
assertions about the coming ubiquity of
In message alpine.deb.2.00.1211270558340.27...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abrah
amsson writes:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact,
both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo ready. Unlike ISP's by and large.
But I'm
2013 - the year of the NAT. (the only way a single stacked address family is
going to be able to talk to
a single stacked member of a different address family... and unless we start
agressive reuse of v4, this will
happen sooner than later (dual-stack is rate limited to the smaller of the
In message alpine.deb.2.00.1211270628380.27...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abrah
amsson writes:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Yet everyone (except you) insist that it does work with everything, and
that all this CGN and 444 stuff and 644 stuff isn't necessary, and that
I'm a
- Forwarded message from Jeremy Lakeman jer...@servalproject.org -
From: Jeremy Lakeman jer...@servalproject.org
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:10:26 +1030
To: serval-project-develop...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [serval-project-dev] Re: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Mon, Nov 26, 2012
at 11:18:13PM + Quoting Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net):
How much of a priority do you think IPv6 capabilities are for corporate IT
departments, beyond a checklist item on RFPs in order to CYA?
I am -- in
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most
programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing is
being done.
IPv6 only is easy to setup if you already have dual stack.
On my Mac it is System Preferences,
75 matches
Mail list logo
