Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS)

At 22:58 09/10/2014 +0200, Christian Seitz wrote: Allowing ASN to blackhole a prefix based on AS sets is dangerous from my point of view. In the RIPE database you can add any AS to your AS set without verification. Ok, it doesn't make much difference because most IP transit providers also filter

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

* Baldur Norddahl > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just > use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the > hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Why do you need those host routes? Most IPv6 IGPs work just fine wit

Re: GApps admin = rogered

On 10/9/2014 20:51, Harald Koch wrote: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rogered The first entries are all 'correct' for the intended slang use, in this case. I have lived a very sheltered life. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact tha

Re: GApps admin = rogered

On 10/9/2014 18:07, Blair Trosper wrote: Just a heads up to our friends at Google Apps. Despite the status page saying all is peachy: http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=status ...the administration page for any Google Apps for domains is totally rogered. It's either an endless redirect l

Re: Bounce action notifications - NANOG mailing list changes yahoo.com users

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Andrew Koch wrote: > To correct this moving forward, selective rewriting of the from header > has been recommended, but requires an upgrade to the Mailman software. If the admins have settled on a best practice, it could help other Mailman operators like myself.

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 10 October 2014 00:37, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using > unnumbered interfaces. > > As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using > private IP addres

Re: GApps admin = rogered

This is 4-5 minutes after the OP emailed On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Mitch Patterson via Outages < outa...@outages.org> wrote: > Shows an issue to me > > TimeDescription > 10/9/14 7:11 PM > We're investigating reports of an issue with Admin console. We will > provide more information shortly. >

Re: [outages] GApps admin = rogered

i confirm this issue is apparent for us as well.

Re: [outages] GApps admin = rogered

Was not there at the time I sent the email. I was thorough in checking. 100% sure. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Mitch Patterson wrote: > Shows an issue to me > > TimeDescription > 10/9/14 7:11 PM > We're investigating reports of an issue with Admin console. We will > provide more informatio

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On 10/10/14 01:02, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety > functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's > say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to > purposely deny pub

GApps admin = rogered

Just a heads up to our friends at Google Apps. Despite the status page saying all is peachy: http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=status ...the administration page for any Google Apps for domains is totally rogered. It's either an endless redirect loop or a deluge of errors. I'd call for pr

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > NONE of the problems listed in RFC 6752 are a problem with using unnumbered > interfaces. As far as Section 8 goes, you're even worse off than if you were using private IP addresses. And see Section 9. My point is that *analogous* issues

Bounce action notifications - NANOG mailing list changes yahoo.com users

Hello Colleagues, The NANOG mailing list had a discussion several months back regarding changes that Yahoo made to their DMARC settings. Over the past day, the NANOG mailing list has received a number of posts from yahoo.com mail users. This triggered bounce action on nearly 300 NANOG mailing

RE: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS)

I understand the concerns but it seems to me that there are already plenty of ways for any large government to black hole whatever they want and they do not need UTRS to do so. The only thing stopping (most) governments from doing this regularly are fears of turning the Internet into another ar

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 23:18, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the > infrastructure. > > Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752. > Yes, for using private IP addressing RFC

RE: Marriott wifi blocking

Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to purposely deny public service.You can almost guarantee that an F

Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS)

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:58:05 +0200 Christian Seitz wrote: > What I do not like at this UTRS idea is that I cannot announce a > prefix via BGP. Somebody has to inject it for me. I would like to > announce it in real time and not with delay because of manual > approval. While true today, it might

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > But all this are customer facing interfaces, which do not really qualify > for "point to point" links. I might consider adding interface addressing > for IPv6, but for me IPv4 was the primary design parameter. Having IPv6 > mirror the IPv4 s

Re: Unwanted Traffic Removal Service (UTRS)

Hi Christian, On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:58:05PM +0200, Christian Seitz wrote: > > > Why is there no validation required when this is done by an IXP? "All > peers are my customers and I do trust them"? What about private > peerings via PNIs? Validation is not required because the requester can

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in any > advantages and disadvantages to the approach. My prediction is that you will remain an advocate of unnumbered links until such time as you have to troubleshoot issue

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > My colleges wanted to completely drop using public IP addressing in the > infrastructure. Your colleagues are wrong. Again, see RFC6752. > I am wondering if all the nay sayers would not agree that is it better to > have a single public l

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Hi Bill Thanks for you response. About customer routers: For IPv6 that answer is simple. The customer is using us as default gateway and that always uses the IPv6 link local address. He has no need to know the public IPv6 address of the uplink router, so we don't tell him. The link local address

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:49 AM, William Herrin wrote: > 6752 isn't germane; it has to do with using private IP addresses on routers, > which borks things up when the router has to generate an ICMP type 3. I beg to differ, as noted by Owen DeLong in this same thread: On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owe

Strategies for migrating lots of customers into L3VPN / route-leaking [x-post from j-nsp]

[apologies for the x-post-- I didn't get any responses from the j-nsp list, so I thought I'd try a larger audience- edited to remove some juniper jargon] Hi all, I'm working on virtualizing a regional network with about 500 customer sites into an L3VPN. All of my customer routes (plus our interne

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I am sorry if I stepped on something sore. I am not dismissing any arguments, and I am genuinely interested in any advantages and disadvantages to the approach. There is more than one way to design a network and all I am saying is this far it is working great for me. The two disadvantages put forwa

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > >> I am sure there are. Tell me about them. > > This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many > times over the years. > >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 22:32, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > > I am sure there are. Tell me about them. > > This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, > many times over the years. > >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can >> just >>> use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the >>> hassle of coming up with new ad

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 10, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > I am sure there are. Tell me about them. This issue has been discussed on all the various operational lists many, many times over the years.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > I don't read it that way at all. It is illegal to intentionally interfere > (meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource) > with any licensed or unlicensed frequency. That is long standing law. Indeed… this i

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can > just > > use a host /128 route to the loopback address of the peer. Saves you the > > hassle of coming up with new addresses for every link. Same trick works > for > > IPv4 too

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks wrote: > >> The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: >> " *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a >> /126 or /127*" >> > > Why do people assign addresses to point-t

RE: Marriott wifi blocking

I don't read it that way at all. It is illegal to intentionally interfere (meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource) with any licensed or unlicensed frequency. That is long standing law. It says in (b) that you must accept interference caused by operation of an

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi spectrum is NOT a licensed band and therefore does not fall under the interference regulations unless they are interfering with a licensed band? I think the first sentence below says a lot to that. The basic premise of all

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: > (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a > continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an > existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system > that won't share the spectrum?

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? It makes remote detection of carrier on the interface as simple as "ping" -Bill -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Syste

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area >>> where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that >>> what Marriott did is il

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 19:55, Richard Hicks wrote: > The BCOP specfically addresses this in 4b: > " *b. Point-to-point links should be allocated a /64 and configured with a > /126 or /127*" > Why do people assign addresses to point-to-point links at all? You can just use a host /128 route to the loop

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to >> doubt. > > Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years. NFC or > something simil

Re: another cogent oddity

i retract the blurb about the bad destinations coming in from cogent, as that obviously doesn't make a lot of sense. the spoofed traffic is actually arriving on my connection into an ix fabric. thx to john frazier for tickling my brain on that one. the upped markings, however, are definitely comin

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Richard Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> "Regardless of the number of hosts on an individual LAN or WAN >> segment, every multi-access network (non-point-to-point) requires at >> least one /64 prefix." >> >> But using /64s on

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Richard Hicks > wrote: > > Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? > > Is there a reason we are ignoring it? > > Hi Richard, > > It's dated (a *lot* about IPv6 has changed since 2011) and a we've > lea

Re: another cogent oddity

On 10/9/14 10:35 AM, ryanL wrote: > you may remember me from the weird cogent route retention / loop > problem i brought up last week. it remains unsolved by cogent to date. > > also remembering i'm a relatively new cogent customer, i recently > noticed some packets floating into my network that h

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:45 AM, TJ wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a >>> /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 >>> through ARIN and got smacked down. >> >> > Ye

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Richard Hicks wrote: > Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? > Is there a reason we are ignoring it? Hi Richard, It's dated (a *lot* about IPv6 has changed since 2011) and a we've learned enough to know some of the things in there are dubious. For example:

RE: another cogent oddity

cogent is well known not to filter in any useful way... in terms of sources that should not be there, we see the same thing (or did the last time I looked). John van Oppen Spectrum Networks Direct: 206-973-8302 Main: 206-973-8300 From: NANOG [nanog-boun

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? > Is there a reason we are ignoring it? > > http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting Speaking for myself, I did review that doc, and had some confusion about allocating /64 to Resi-Subscribers. However the broader discussion seems to evolved

another cogent oddity

you may remember me from the weird cogent route retention / loop problem i brought up last week. it remains unsolved by cogent to date. also remembering i'm a relatively new cogent customer, i recently noticed some packets floating into my network that had cos and ipp markings on them. i figured i

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> > Question: Should we be asking ARIN for another /32 so that each network > > has it's own /32 or should be break out the /32 into /36 and use these in > > each of the geographies ? > > Depends on your needs… Either is a viable solution, depending on your > circumstances. ARIN has an MDN polic

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to > doubt. Various controlled compounds have been chemically tagged for years. NFC or something similar is the logical next step (it also holds a lot of promise and imp

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

It’s entirely likely that someone attempted to get a /31 from ARIN recently and they most definitely would have been smacked down, but not because they couldn’t get more than a /32. ARIN will not issue a /31 under current policy, but if you need more than ~48,000 end-sites, you easily qualify for

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt. I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into segments along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies y

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 10/9/14 8:45 AM, TJ wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a >>> /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 >>> through ARIN and got smacked down. >> >> > Yes; ISTR sever

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Sixty replies and no one linked to the BCOP? Is there a reason we are ignoring it? http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Subnetting As we recently discovered ARIN is handing out IPv6 allocations on nibble boundaries. Either a /32 or /28 for service providers. A justification and utilization plan

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: >>> Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. >>> >>> 4. Keeping in mind >>> >>>4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be >>>excluded from the global routing table >> >> 4.1a Prefix cutouts of

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > Mark Andrews writes: > >> In message <54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com>, Paige Thompson writes: >>> makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per >>> /32 (or something like that), though. >> >> A /32 is the minimum alloc

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Karsten Elfenbein wrote: > Ripe is handing out /29 without any additional documentation > current IPv4 usage documentation should do the trick to request larger > blocks for deployment of /48 to customers And /19s with documentation. Europe will by God not end up

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: > > Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a > > /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 > > through ARIN and got smacked down. > > Yes; ISTR several /20s and even a /19 were the lar

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 81, Issue 7

www.socialsecurity.gov still down on ipv6. Still looping. wget -6 -T 5 www.socialsecurity.gov --2014-10-09 08:07:23-- http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ Resolving www.socialsecurity.gov (www.socialsecurity.gov)... 2001:1930:c01::, 2001:1930:e03:: Connecting to www.socialsecurity.gov (www.so

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 10:22 -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: > Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a > /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 > through ARIN and got smacked down. Legend has it that the US DOD applied for a /8 - and got sm

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I've been using /36s per location, but hm -- great question. How easy is it to get a larger allocation anyway? In RIPE, i.e: you just ask and get a /29 with no questions asked. On 10/9/2014 午後 11:31, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. 4. Keeping

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets simply > displays a complete lack of imagination. On the contrary, I believe that the increase in the potential address pool size will lead to much flatter, less hierarchical netw

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request prefixes in > the future not just traditional routers. I'm expecting every molecule in every compound to have an embedded IPv6 address which can be read via NFC or some similar tec

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

2014-10-09 16:22 GMT+02:00 Daniel Corbe : > Has anyone successfully gotten a RIR to assign anything bigger than a > /32? I seem to recall in recent history someone tried to obtain a /31 > through ARIN and got smacked down. > > Even if you're assigning a /56 to every end user, that's still on the >

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

> > Selection of a default prefix is easy. Here are the steps. > > > > 4. Keeping in mind > > > > 4.1 Prefixes longer than somewhere around /48 to /56 may be > > excluded from the global routing table > > 4.1a Prefix cutouts of any size (including /48) from inside your /32 > or la

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Policy allows any ISP (LIR) with need greater than /32 to easily qualify for what they need up to /12. I know of at least two entities that have applied for and with minimal effort and appropriate justification, received /24 allocations and many with /28s. Owen > On Oct 9, 2014, at 07:00,

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Mark Andrews writes: > In message <54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com>, Paige Thompson writes: >> makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per >> /32 (or something like that), though. > > A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers > or will have more

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

> On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon wrote: > > On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air >>> TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat >>> Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town? >> >> The t

Paetech Routing Loop

Is there a Paetech/Windstream tech that could help me with a routing loop in New Hampshire? Thanks, Nathaniel -- This email message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or non-public information. The information is intended solely for the de

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

In message <54366ab9.3040...@gmail.com>, Paige Thompson writes: > makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per > /32 (or something like that), though. A /32 is the minimum allocation to a ISP. If you have more customers or will have more customers request a bigger bloc

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > So, let me ask the question in a different manner... > What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a Residential > customer (vs a /64). The wisdom/reasoning behind larger allocations is to control the cost of doing busine

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per /32 (or something like that), though. On 10/09/14 12:29, Mark Andrews wrote: > In message <1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu>, manning bill > writes: >> yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to

OT: A certain WISP operator puts Sir Tim in his place

Noted, with some amusement, in the comments to a NY Times piece in which Sir Tim Berners-Lee speaks out for net neutrality: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/tim-berners-lee-web-creator-defends-net-neutrality/ --quote-- Brett Glass Laramie, WY 16 hours ago

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

In message <1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu>, manning bill writes: > yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing = > all that dark space, esp. when > virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. > > > /bill > PO Box 12317 > Marina del Rey, CA 9029

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing all that dark space, esp. when virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Give them a /48. T

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 09:46 +0100, Daniel Ankers wrote: > What I realised was that (sticking to best practices) You mean "subnet only on 4-bit boundaries"? Nibble boundaries are nice for human readability, but if there is a good technical reason for other boundaries, you shouldn't shy away from t

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On 9 October 2014 05:40, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message < > 482678376.131852.1412829159356.javamail.zim...@snappytelecom.net>, > Faisal Imtiaz writes: > > >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. > > > > I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

We assign a /128 by DHCPv6 (*). And then we assign a /48 by DHCPv6-PD prefix delegation. To everyone no matter what class of customer they are. You are thinking about it wrong. It is not about what the customer need but about what you need. Do you really have a need to use more than 48 bits for yo

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote: What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town? The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for that translat

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Owen DeLong wrote: Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These should, IMHO, be fixed. DHCPv6-PD is already standardized in 3GPP several years ago, it just hasn't made it widely into equipment out there yet. That's why current "best way" to

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 04:59 +, Peter Rocca wrote: > To paraphrase a post on this list a while ago (my apologies for lack of > reference). > There are two kinds of waste: > - the first kind of waste is providing 'too many' subnets for someone; > - the second kind of waste is leaving the space

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On (2014-10-09 00:37 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: > Sadly there are pieces of 3GPP that limit LTE to single /64 already. These > should, IMHO, be fixed. According to the national IPv6 residential recommendation 3GPP release 10 offers prefix delegation, which will facilitate this. > > Having routa

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > Mark, > >>> >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers. > >>> >>> I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or >>> otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ? >> >> 256 is *not*

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Oct 8, 2014, at 11:54 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2014-10-09 15:25 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote: > > Hi, > >> Because /64 only allows for a single subnet running SLAAC with >> currently defined specifications. > > I fully agree that larger than 64 must be allocation, in mobile internet, > res

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

I’ll go a step further… If you give a residential customer the /48 that they should be getting, then as DHCP-PD and automatic topologies become more widespread, you have enabled flexibility in the breadth and depth of the bit patterns used to facilitate such hierarchies in the home network envi

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On 10/9/2014 02:16, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote: BART would not have had

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On 10/9/2014 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote: As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that? They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc. on BART trains. You can carry

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

Stop cringing and give them /48s. It’s really not going to harm anything. Really. Look at the math. That scale of waste is a very very pale glimmer compared to the LAN side of things where you have 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 (and then some) addresses left over after you put a few hundred thousa

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote: BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

> As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby > bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that? They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc. on BART trains. You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. Yo

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: >> On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >>> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote: BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with the various phone co

Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:48 PM, James R Cutler wrote: > On Oct 8, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Erik Sundberg wrote: >> I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to figure >> out our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is everyone >> giving for a default LAN allocatio