On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:21:50 -0700, Paul Ferguson said:
On the other hand, there are beaucoup enterprise networks unwilling to
consider to moving to v6 until there are management, control,
administrative, and security issues addressed.
The problem is that for many of those enterprises, the
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:35:31 PM Denis Fondras wrote:
When speaking of IPv6 deployment, I routinely hear about
host security. I feel like it should be stated that this
is *in no way* an IPv6 issue. May the device be ULA,
LLA, GUA or RFC1918-addressed, the device is at risk
anyway.
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:02:13 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need
to clean up their act and not that one shouldn't expect
to be able to expose a printer to the world. It isn't
hard to do this correctly. It also does not cost much
on a per
On Monday, March 24, 2014 01:15:27 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
And there you go putting stricter requirements on
printers that you don't put on laptop, servers. None of
us would put any machines on the net if they had to meet
your printer's requirements.
Because, at the very least, a laptop or
On Monday, March 24, 2014 01:37:52 AM Timothy Morizot wrote:
Yes. As I said, same general sorts of risks for the most
part as in IPv4. Details differ, but same general types.
My point was that it's mostly FUD to wave the flag of
scary new security weaknesses with no mitigations in
IPv6. It's
On Monday, March 24, 2014 02:41:00 AM Timothy Morizot wrote:
The original assertion was that there are unaddressed
security weaknesses in IPv6 itself preventing its
adoption. At least that's the way I read it. And that
assertion is mostly FUD.
The risks have less to do with IPv6, and more to
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 08:38 +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
In an ideal IPv6 world, all hosts have GUA's, and in this
case, host security becomes a bigger problem, because now
the host is directly accessible without a NAT66 in between
(we hope).
The mantras from my training courses: Addressable
On Monday, March 24, 2014 04:26:11 AM Naslund, Steve wrote:
If you are going to try to do a fiber build out to the
home, what would be the monthly cost of just the cable
if I cannot sell services on it and is anyone will the
pay the much. If I have to pay something like say $40 a
month for
On Monday, March 24, 2014 09:00:46 AM Karl Auer wrote:
The mantras from my training courses: Addressable is not
the same as accessible; routable is not the same as
routed.
Just because you give every host a globally routable
address doesn't mean you have to route them. Just
because you
NANOGers -
On Friday 14 March, the United States Government announced that it intends to
transition
oversight of key Internet functions (including the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority, or
IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community. NTIA has asked ICANN to
facilitate, in
consultation
Am 23.03.2014 05:40, schrieb Kshitiz Verma:
As claimed in http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~misra/news/CD070113.pdf ,
500 to 1000 de-peering happens on a daily basis today.
I suppose this is just by technical incapabilities. People leak
prefixes, hit max-pref limters, forget to clear sessions or
Additional support on my feeling of DO and IPv6, is DO's stance of
directly not even allowing IPv6 tunnels to HE, SiXXs, or any of the
other providers by specifically teliing them not to allow connections
from your IPv4 address space.
Say *what*?
I've got HE tunnels into DO, purely because
Since you seem to know a lot more than the rest of us about the value of
an IPv4 address, why aren't you buying them for this $1-4 price and then
making yourself a billionaire by selling them at $11?
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake.
Because he doesn¹t have 1/4 billion dollars to buy 1-4 dollar price and
sell at 10+..
Duh.
On 3/24/14, 4:46 AM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
Since you seem to know a lot more than the rest of us about the value of
an IPv4 address, why aren't you buying them for this $1-4 price and then
On (2014-03-24 07:46 -0400), Brandon Ross wrote:
Since you seem to know a lot more than the rest of us about the value of an
IPv4 address, why aren't you buying them for this $1-4 price and then making
yourself a billionaire by selling them at $11?
Maybe he does not suspect enough clueless
Thanks for the clarification on the number. I was surprised to see that
number too!
At the same time, we couldn't even find genuine disputes apart from the
ones we shared. It seems there should be more but we just could not find
them on the web.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Fredy Kuenzler
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 01:37:52 AM Timothy Morizot wrote:
Yes. As I said, same general sorts of risks for the most
part as in IPv4. Details differ, but same general types.
My point was that it's mostly FUD to wave
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:35:31 PM Denis Fondras wrote:
When speaking of IPv6 deployment, I routinely hear about
host security. I feel like it should be stated that this
is *in no way* an IPv6 issue. May the device
If you're interested in the visualisation, checkout the info link at
the bottom of the applet.
Specifically:
quote
BGPlay was created in collaboration with the Compunet Research Lab at
Roma Tre University
http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~compunet/www/view/index.php. The source
code is freely
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2014-03-24 07:46 -0400), Brandon Ross wrote:
Maybe he does not suspect enough clueless people exist to pay that premium?
Starting LIR + company, costs about 4000EUR, this gives you /22 for LIR,
putting IPv4 address price at
On (2014-03-24 08:02 -0500), Timothy Morizot wrote:
Perhaps that's a way to game the last /8 policy in the RIPE region. I don't
know enough about it to say one way or another. (And even then it seems
like you can only do that for a limited period of time.) But ARIN doesn't
have a last /8
The economic reality is that if I build out an expensive infrastructure I
have to pile on as many high priced services as possible to order to maximize
the revenue from it. A customer who does not balk at a $200 a month
TV/voice/Internet service is not going to be happy getting a bill of
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:31:56 +0530, Kshitiz Verma said:
At the same time, we couldn't even find genuine disputes apart from the
ones we shared. It seems there should be more but we just could not find
them on the web.
Much more common than actual depeering is the passive-agressive version,
On 24 March 2014 10:47, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Here in Illinois, we have been paying for the construction of our tollway in
perpetuity. When it was originally built the state promised to remove the
tolls as soon as construction costs were recovered. We are still waiting
and
On 24/03/2014 06:47, Mark Tinka wrote:
Because, at the very least, a laptop or server can run a
stateless packet filter to keep out pokes at ports that may
be running by default, but have no business being queried
over the network.
once upon a time, they didn't have host firewalls or
On 03/23/2014 11:08 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition.
This is a quagmire;but it boils down to if the FCC says they're exempt,
then they're exempt and have a 'rural monopoly' (there's a lot of
caselaw and a number of FCC Report and Orders (and further
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Addressable is not the same as
accessible; routable is not the same as routed.
Indeed. However, all successful security is about _defense in depth_.
If it is inaccessible, unrouted, unroutable and unaddressable then you
have
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private
addressing does not equal security.
Hi Steve,
It is your privilege to believe this and to practice it in the
networks you operate.
Many of the
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
ugly than CGN.
it can be stateless
You're smarter than that.
-Bill
--
William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
3005
On 03/24/2014 09:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Addressable is not the same as
accessible; routable is not the same as routed.
Indeed. However, all successful security is about _defense in depth_.
If it is inaccessible,
On Monday, March 24, 2014 02:42:07 PM Timothy Morizot wrote:
While I don't really disagree with that statement, I'm
not entirely sure what CPE firewalls and home devices
have to do with enterprise deployments, the topic I was
discussing. We've been actively working this for the
past three
On Monday, March 24, 2014 02:56:13 PM Timothy Morizot wrote:
NAT traversal is and has long been fairly trivial. NAT
and RFC1918 provides no meaningful host protection
whatsoever and never has. The only thing that limits
direct access to internal networks is a stateful
firewall. (Well, IPS
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Addressable is not the same as
accessible; routable is not the same as routed.
Indeed. However, all successful security is about _defense in depth_.
If it is inaccessible, unrouted, unroutable and unaddressable then
not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you change an
upstream provider.
Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of private
address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has allowed many to enjoy a simple network
addressing scheme.
I have and will continue
On Monday, March 24, 2014 06:02:11 PM Nick Hilliard wrote:
once upon a time, they didn't have host firewalls or
packet filters, which was why we ended up with:
https://isc.sans.edu/diary/Survival+Time+on+the+Internet/
4721
:-).
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
I think it would be just as easy to claim that breaking the end-to-end model is
more of a security concern that lack of NAT. Having the NAT is essentially
condoning a permanent man-in-the-middle. A lot of customers do believe that
NAT adds to their security. I would advise them however that
If they have a stateful IPv6 firewall (which they should and which most
firewall vendors support), they already have what they need to prevent their
internal systems from being accessible from the outside. If you are an
enterprise and you don't have a stateful firewall, you are in trouble from
On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private
addressing does not equal security.
Many of the folks you would have deploy IPv6
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/24/2014 09:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Addressable is not the same as
accessible; routable is not the same as routed.
Indeed. However, all
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
all successful security is about _defense in depth_.
If it is inaccessible, unrouted, unroutable and unaddressable then you
have four layers of security. If it is merely inaccessible and
unrouted you have two.
Time to give
- Original Message -
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
Hey, what part of up to 8Mbps is an assurance, that the system supports
8Mbps from all customers 24x7 simultaneously? Only the former can be
delivered inexpensively; the latter from large service providers is a
business service
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Some folks WANT to segregate their networks from the Internet via a
general-protocol transparent proxy. They've had this capability with
IPv4 for 20
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we
prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space.
At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population
densities in the vast majority of
- Original Message -
From: Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com
Well, don't forget the labor, taxes, business licenses fees, county
taxes on chairs, Obama care, accountants and time required.
$ enable
# conf t
(conf)# Obamacare
^ command not understood
Cheers,
-- jra
--
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com
What do you mean by average monthly bill? That is the issue here. The
average monthly bill includes the services you are getting. In the
Chicago area a fiber optic access circuit unbundled from the imcumbent
carrier to a
Hi Mike,
You can either press the big red button and fire the nukes or you
can't, so what difference how many layers of security are involved
with the Football?
I say this with the utmost respect, but you must understand the
principle of defense in depth in order to make competent
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
all successful security is about _defense in depth_.
If it is inaccessible, unrouted, unroutable and unaddressable then you
have four layers of security. If it is merely inaccessible and
unrouted you have two.
Time to
On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
I say this with the utmost respect, but you must understand the
principle of defense in depth in order to make competent security
decisions for your organization. Smart people disagree on the details
but the principle is not
I don't buy that one at all. Grandma does not care or know about ipv4 or ipv6.
When the ipv4 CPE gets installed it blocks inbound connections by default, why
would ipv6 be any different? Windows firewall if she is relying on that should
not have any problems with v6 than it does with v4. I
That number will change depending on distance, terrain, and a lot of other
factors. I have personally installed a lot of outside plant fiber and $700 can
turn into $2400 the first time you find a rock or need to add a manhole
somewhere. It also depends on distance between customers and their
On Mar 24, 2014, at 13:17 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Some folks WANT to segregate their networks from the Internet via a
general-protocol
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:13:43 -0400, William Herrin said:
You'd expect folks to give up two layers of security at exactly the
same time as they're absorbing a new network protocol with which
they're yet unskilled? Does that make sense to you from a
risk-management standpoint?
The problem is
On 3/24/14 1:37 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
I say this with the utmost respect, but you must understand the
principle of defense in depth in order to make competent security
decisions for your organization.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Alexander Lopez alex.lo...@opsys.comwrote:
not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you
change an upstream provider.
Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of
private address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 3/24/14 1:37 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
That would be one of those details on which smart people disagree.
In this case, I think you're wrong. Modern NAT superseded the
transparent proxies and bastion hosts of the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Bill Herrin wrote:
I say this with the utmost respect, but you must understand the
principle of defense in depth in order to make competent security
decisions for your organization. Smart people disagree on the details
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:37 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
What sort of traction are you getting from that argument when you
speak with enterprise security folks?
Actually, I never even had to make the argument in our enterprise. Our
cybersecurity organization already knew that
it involves two layers of heterogeneous firewalls (protecting multiple
^
Ugh. Knew I was forgetting something.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one
I doubt that many residential customers will be readdressing their networks
except for us geeks. Most of them are going to be using CPE that grabs an
address via DHCP for the WAN interface and then does an IPv6 DHCP PD with the
/64 it gets from the service provider. The customer sees nothing
* William Herrin
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
ugly than CGN.
it can be stateless
You're smarter than that.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145
Thinking about this again, let's take Jay at his word that he can make a
passing for $700-800. Unfortunately, the ISP or service provider does not
pay for a passing, they pay for an entry. After all we can't let them make
their own entry or we will have everyone and their brother in our
Yes, that is exactly what IPv6 expects of us. The only surprising part is by
all indications the IPv6 designers did not think this would be a problem.
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:14 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.comwrote:
[...]
The economic reality is that if I build out an expensive infrastructure I
have to pile on as many high priced services as possible to order to
maximize the revenue from it. A customer who does not balk at a $200
On 3/24/14 10:08 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/24/2014 09:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Addressable is not the same as
accessible; routable is not the
Hello,
Up until today we have been able to reach hosts in the
59.229.189.0/24network via AS174, Cogent, in Toronto. Now we can
not, our packets
stop at 38.112.36.101. The support team at Cogent informed me that network
isn't in the internet routing table.
I attempted to do an AS lookup on
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, greg whynott greg.whyn...@gmail.com wrote:
59.229.189.0
$ whois -h whois.cymru.com 59.229.189.0
AS | IP | AS Name
NA | 59.229.189.0 | NA
cymru seems to think there's no route for that network. my network agrees.
On 2014-03-24 13:49, greg whynott wrote:
[..]
4 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 58.229.66.9
5 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 58.229.66.105
6 7 ms 5 ms 3 ms 58.229.119.149
Seems you mean 58 instead of 59.
Greets,
Jeroen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/24/2014 1:53 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, greg whynott
greg.whyn...@gmail.com wrote:
59.229.189.0
$ whois -h whois.cymru.com 59.229.189.0 AS | IP
| AS Name NA | 59.229.189.0 | NA
cymru
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/questions/when-ipv6-will-be-fully-supportedwhich
then links to
http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/2639897-ipv6-addressessays
it all, really...
Scott
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Bryan Socha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/24/2014 2:13 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
On 3/24/2014 1:53 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM, greg whynott
greg.whyn...@gmail.com wrote:
59.229.189.0
$ whois -h whois.cymru.com 59.229.189.0 AS | IP | AS
oh my how embarrassing is that...
15 years doing networking too... It was a typo this whole time as
indicated by Jeroen and I didn't even catch it.. will 'its monday' work as
an excuse? ;)58 instead of 59. I was pulling my hair on this one,
the network drawing I was referencing
Randy -
Total number of /24s of space directly registered in ARIN's database =
6,644,175 (101.38 /8 equivalents)
Of those: 2,808,621 /24s of space (42.3%) are registered to ARIN members
(42.86 /8 equivalents)
Total number of Org IDs with directly registered IPv4 addresses = 26,148
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-anderson-siit-dc-00
derived from 6346
randy
On 3/24/14 10:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:13:43 -0400, William Herrin said:
You'd expect folks to give up two layers of security at exactly the
same time as they're absorbing a new network protocol with which
they're yet unskilled? Does that make sense to you
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
* William Herrin
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
ugly than CGN.
it can be stateless
You're smarter than that.
And all those IPv4 addresses for the 1:1 translation required by the
stateless version are coming from where exactly?
maybe you should read the documents
this would be a good time to tll your users not to send or open ms word
documents. active 0day
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/03/zero-day-vulnerability-in-microsoft-word-under-active-attack/
randy
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:13:43 -0400, William Herrin said:
You'd expect folks to give up two layers of security at exactly the
same time as they're absorbing a new network protocol with which
they're yet unskilled? Does that make
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com
Thinking about this again, let's take Jay at his word that he can make
a passing for $700-800.
Let's not.
I was quoting vendors who had themselves been quoted by other NANOGers.
Whether those other NANOGers had *paid*
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
And all those IPv4 addresses for the 1:1 translation required by the
stateless version are coming from where exactly?
maybe you should read the documents
I did. They were abstruse beyond even the normal level for RFCs but I
made
You propose stateless NAT64 as an viable alternative to CGN.
where do i do that?
The question stands: where are you planning to get the extra IPv4
addresses for the static 1:1 mapping?
maybe look at the +P in A+P
randy
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
You propose stateless NAT64 as an viable alternative to CGN.
where do i do that?
Nick Hilliard: don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol
translation is any less
ugly than CGN.
Your reply (verbosity added for clarity):
You propose stateless NAT64 as an viable alternative to CGN.
^^^
where do i do that?
Nick Hilliard
ahh. i see your error. i am not nick hilliard. he's the cute one.
Your reply (verbosity added for clarity): [Sure it is! Unlike where
folks solve their problem with CGN, v6 to v4
A natural monopoly exists without force of arms or regulation very easily.
Any place where the market density is insufficient to support the cost of
multiple providers building out the infrastructure for a given service, a
natural monopoly exists.
For example, if cities were to simply open up
FYI He tells everyone they¹re cute. Don¹t buy his tricks, he doesn¹t call
back the next morning.
;)
Ps. Take it easy on each other. It¹s the beginning of spring.. Head
outside.. Go have a beer.. Smoke a joint.. What I am getting at is.. It¹s
possible you guys should relax and realize that in the
In order for IPv6 to truly work, everyone needs to be moving towards IPv6.
Maintaining dual protocols for the entire internet is problematic, wasteful,
and horribly
inefficient at best. Bottom line, the internet outgrew IPv4 almost 30 years ago
and
we’ve been using various hacks like NAT as a
Let’s assume, for a moment, that there are 32 /8s out there that could be
reclaimed.
Let’s further assume that renumbering out of a /8 takes, on average, about 18
months.
(That’s moving almost 1,000,000 customers per month on average, potentially).
Even if we got all 32 /8 equivalents back
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
some point in the not-too-distant
On 2014-03-24, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
If they have a stateful IPv6 firewall (which they should and which most
firewall vendors support), they already have what they need to prevent their
internal systems from being accessible from the outside. If you are an
enterprise and
On Mar 22, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Cb B wrote:
You can pay $3 per ipv4, that is your business. But, it may be worth noting
that ATT, Verizon, Comcast, T-Mobile, TWT, Google Fiber all have have
double digit ipv6 penetration
IPv4 has already been trading around $10/address.
So the prices quoted a while back don’t make much sense to me.
Further, could you please quantify “vast”? How many /8 equivalents in
a “vast number”?
Until they ran out, APNIC was issuing approximately 1.5 /8s per month.
How long, exactly, do
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
All of
How long, exactly, do you expect 3.2 billion unicast addresses to provide
enough addressing for 6.8+ billion people?
Oh, I'd say a decade. Like I said, I have IPv6 on my server and my home
broadband, which mostly works, with the emphasis on the mostly.
We've just barely started to move
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
FYI He tells everyone they¹re cute. Don¹t buy his tricks, he doesn¹t call
back the next morning.
Ps. Take it easy on each other. It¹s the beginning of spring.. Head
outside..
Spring!? Snow is in
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
It will be a long time
before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
worth the risk of going v6 only.
New ISP's are born everyday.
Some of them will be able to have a Buy an ISP that has
IPv4 or Buy IPv4 space from
On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
two questions:
o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin
members?
o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are arin
members?
i understand that the latter will be
On Mar 23, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
two questions:
o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin
members?
o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are arin
members?
i understand that the latter will be
On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
run services from home. That all their machines
shouldn't
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
