You should elaborate on some of these 'holes' then.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:48:06 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
Both techniques indicate more than 20% of the US Internet users are
connecting via IPv6.
lots of 6GB downloads this morning :)
Colin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Apple Beta Software Program betaprog...@insideapple.apple.com
Subject: Test-drive the OS X El Capitan public beta
Date: 10 July 2015 05:08:06 BST
To: col...@mx5.org.uk
The El Capitan public beta is now
On 7/9/2015 6:31 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
mailto:matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
mailto:o...@delong.com wrote:
...
You are correct… In order for 20% of Google’s traffic to come from
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:33:25 -0700, Matthew Kaufman said:
One of the hopeful outcomes of IPv6 adoption was that an ISP could get
enough to last forever in a single transaction. But forever isn't
very long at one /48 (or more) per customer.
How long does it take to blow through a /20 at /48 a
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Actually I was mentioning thousands.
Dozens, millions, whatever. Pick something and get on with it already.
What you personally don't foresee is pretty much irrelevant to what will
actually happen...
And planning for
On 7/9/2015 3:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Can you offer one valid reason not to give residential users /48s? Any benefit
whatsoever?
Sure. To avoid having to go back and deal with ARIN yet again for more
IPv6 space.
One of the hopeful outcomes of IPv6 adoption was that an ISP could get
And I’m saying you’re ignoring an important part of reality.
Whatever ISPs default to deploying now will become the standard to which
application developers develop.
Changing the ISP later is easy.
I'm not even convinced of that. Once /56 (or *any* value) is baked into the
processes,
On 9/Jul/15 21:55, Jared Mauch wrote:
I run my home as a big broadcast domain, but there's no reason
I wouldn't perhaps segment things differently. There are a lot of people
who just extend their wifi by plugging in a 2nd router with a long cable
and don't realize they now have a new
On 9/Jul/15 21:45, Matthew Huff wrote:
I've seen VLAN/subnet security used frequently in the financial world, even
to the point of having full firewalls between vlans/subnets. Mostly for
regulator purposes (Chinese firewall and all that). It's also common to allow
outbound requests or
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:42:57 -0700, Matthew Kaufman said:
infrastructure. Anecdotally: I have yet to work regularly at a facility
that has IPv6 connectivity to the outside world from the WiFi networks
that serve employee laptops.
Anecdotally, it's been about a decade since I worked someplace
There has been tomes on this topic. There will continue to be many more.
That is because many of you continue in trying to defend the following
concept.
customer subnet bits == isp customers bits
So now, the ISP is supposed to put some effort and gain more bits. Why
not the customer?
On 9/Jul/15 18:53, Matthew Huff wrote:
If an ISP wants to give out a /48, great for them. If they want to give out
only a /56, I say that's fine. What's more important to me is that they
implement IPv6. Arguing about prefix size and SLAAC vs DHCP rather than just
go ahead and implement
On 9/Jul/15 21:38, Tyler Applebaum wrote:
Do people actually use VLANs for security? It's nice to implement them for
organizational purposes and to prevent broadcast propagation.
Limitation of broadcast propagation could be viewed as a security feature.
Mark.
2 mbit is still more than 32 bit ;)
alan
Hello,
Let me introduce another first world problem. We use DHCPv4 to assign each
user a IPv4 /32 and DHCPv6-PD to assign a IPv6 /128 WAN plus a /48 prefix.
All good.
However we are an ISP where the customer chooses his own CPE. We just ship
a modem/mediaconverter/ONU with one ethernet port. The
In message capkb-7c5lx0qwypfq5qyyvfahsbqfvw7tkhsuezvqdtmvyc...@mail.gmail.com
, Baldur Norddahl writes:
Hello,
Let me introduce another first world problem. We use DHCPv4 to assign each
user a IPv4 /32 and DHCPv6-PD to assign a IPv6 /128 WAN plus a /48 prefix.
All good.
However we are an
On 10/Jul/15 01:08, Owen DeLong wrote:
If we deliver /48s, then they will come up with innovative ways to
make use of those deployments. If we deliver /56s, then innovation
will be constrained to what can be delivered to /56s, even for sites
that have /48s.
I'm finding it difficult to wrap
Hi Joseph,
in the meantime I have ~20 verified paths which are affected and Level3 is
simply not competent enough to reroute/drop the affected path ...
FYI: my private ticket # is 9446435
###
There is also a new global ticket available:
Network Event Detail
Network Event Summary: Multiple
32 bit connection with a 32 bit address will open up an three-dimensional
portal under the hotel. They all know this and work around it by selecting a
lower connection speed.
On July 10, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Alan Buxey a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
2 mbit is still more than 32 bit ;)
alan
On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote:
RIPE policy requires me to send in justification for review for any
allocations larger than a /48. For a $35/month contract? Forget it, not
going to happen. Plus it would be rejected
….
It is just sad this is not
Level3 had an issue with one of their core routers in Los Angeles last
night(7pm Pacific) and early this morning(1am Pacific). Last update to my
trouble ticket had the issue still being reviewed by engineering, but that a
core router was dropping packets.
On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Jürgen
On 10 July 2015 at 12:09, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Who is forbidding you? Not the IETF. Not the RIRs.
RIPE policy requires me to send in justification for review for any
allocations larger than a /48. For a $35/month contract? Forget it, not
going to happen. Plus it would be
Hi,
does anyone else experience issues with the Level3 network at the US west
coast? We see lots of broken paths like this:
Packets
Pings
Host Loss% Snt Last Avg
Best Wrst
On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:01 AM, Nicholas Suan
ns...@nonexiste.netmailto:ns...@nonexiste.net wrote:
You should elaborate on some of these 'holes' then.
Indeed.
If there are “holes” in the methodology, then they are quite consistent holes,
since Google,
APNIC, and Akamai
On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 02:08 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
And planning for a future that doesn't happen because you're too caught up
in *planning* that future is irrelevant, too.
Advocating for fewer limits is not planning. It's the opposite of it.
It's about retaining more flexibility - as a
On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Colin Johnston
col...@mx5.org.ukmailto:col...@mx5.org.uk wrote:
lots of 6GB downloads this morning :)
Colin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Apple Beta Software Program
betaprog...@insideapple.apple.commailto:betaprog...@insideapple.apple.com
Subject: Test-drive
On Jul 9, 2015, at 11:53 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:33:25 -0700, Matthew Kaufman said:
One of the hopeful outcomes of IPv6 adoption was that an ISP could get
enough to last forever in a single transaction. But forever isn't
very long at one /48 (or more)
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:05:50PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 011d01d0bab1$e7890a00$b69b1e00$@gmail.com, Chuck Church writes:
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 9:08 AM
To: Colin
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch j...@anexia.at wrote:
Level3 is broken again ...
maybe today they decided to only do L2 routing? :)
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 08:58:22PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:14:16 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
If there are “holes” in the methodology, then they are quite consistent
holes...
They are mere statistics. They say only what they say without any measured
On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:50 , John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Mel Beckman
m...@beckman.orgmailto:m...@beckman.org wrote:
This is a side issue, but I'm surprised ARIN is still advertising incorrect
information in the table.
...
Are you saying that there
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:06:03 -0400, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
It's like going to a Starbucks as a homeless person with just pocket
change, and ordering the cheapest coffee on the menu, and being told
Oh, that's for off-planet visitors only. It says so on our website
under Terms
Level3 is broken again ...
Packets Pings
HostLoss% Snt Last Avg Best
Wrst StDev
1. 178.255.154.17 63.6%120.2 0.2 0.2
0.3 0.0
2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 7/10/2015 4:00 PM, Eddie Tardist wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Christoph Blecker
cblec...@gmail.com wrote:
The bug that this crash impacts is in ASA was introduced in
9.1(4.3) and fixed in 9.1(5.1) and later. Are you inside the
Ricky,
I am always in favor of redundant clarity over technically correct confusion :)
-mel beckman
On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:06:03 -0400, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
It's like going to a Starbucks as a homeless person
Jared,
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/525db76369bedd1029d61f47-1200/august-2009.jpg
Perfect!
-mel via cell
On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Jared Mauch
ja...@puck.nether.netmailto:ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:48:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
You perhaps
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:14:16 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
If there are “holes” in the methodology, then they are quite consistent
holes...
They are mere statistics. They say only what they say without any measured
margin of error.
For Google, their numbers are collected via
You perhaps haven't worked a large government network deployment before. One
doesn't activate features not enumerated in the design. Ever. Because they
won't get and can thus introduce security or reliability covered in acceptance
testing and could introduce security or reliability problems.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:48:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
You perhaps haven't worked a large government network deployment before. One
doesn't activate features not enumerated in the design. Ever. Because they
won't get and can thus introduce security or reliability covered in
acceptance
Mark,
Few acceptance test regimes cover established feature testing. It's just too
expensive. For example, an acceptance test of a firewall installation does not
include validating the DPI implementation. Government and enterprise buyers
rely on certifications, such as ICSA for firewalls,
How can it be a large, complex deployment if it’s greenfield.
In that case, you need to acceptance test the IPv4 just as much as IPv6.
The difference is that you don’t have to rerun your acceptance tests 6-months
later when you have to implement IPv6 in a rush because you suddenly learned
that
On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:34 , Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
Owen,
I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with that
term.
My understanding of the term greenfield WRT wifi is that there are no
interfering signals to contend with. I don't know of any
On 11/07/15 08:25, Shane Ronan wrote:
1.1.1.1 is usually a good bet
Sadly yes, even though it's valid public IP space Cisco still have it
documented as their suggested captive portal address.
Despite it (and 1.2.3.0/24) being advertised by $ORK for years at this
point on behalf of APNIC.
Yes, but TBH, they are advertised as a darkspace collection project, so Cisco’s
use is actually somewhat helpful to that activity.
It’s unlikely that 1.1.1.0/24 or 1.2.3.0/24 will ever be allocated by APNIC.
Owen
On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:47 , Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On
Owen,
I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with that
term.
My understanding of the term greenfield WRT wifi is that there are no
interfering signals to contend with. I don't know of any U.S. airport that
meets that definition. First you have all the wifi of
I would say it depends on the complexity and probability of it happening
accidentally. An incorrect letter (language change perhaps) in a URL that
crashes a web server might not be malicious. A crafted ESP or ISAKMP packet
that was created in a Linux packet tool and 'randomly' hits your VPN I'd
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is allowed for
in the future but not configured in the short term. With less than 10,000
ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most mobile
as well hopefully less upgrade traffic once installed as update install images
less big as well
colin
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Jul 2015, at 14:11, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:17 AM, Colin Johnston col...@mx5.org.uk wrote:
lots of 6GB downloads this morning
Meanwhile, I'm sitting here on a patio at a cafe on Samos, Greece. And the free
wifi gives me native v6 to my tablet and phone without any intervention.
Test-ipv6.com tells me that the score is 10/10 and all the google bits just
work.
So, surely it just works.
I wish we had it this easy in
On 7/10/15, 6:34 AM, NANOG on behalf of Baldur Norddahl
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of baldur.nordd...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that DHCPv6-PD is not intelligent enough. Yes there
is a provision such that the user CPE could give a hint of how much space
is want, but no, it
Hi,
sitting here and watching the packet loss coming and going :(.
It changes every 10-25min. Looks like an massive issue in San Jose - routers
out there sometimes have an latency from 5-6 SECONDS ...
best regards
Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network Infrastructure
ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs
On Friday, July 10, 2015, Joseph Jenkins j...@breathe-underwater.com wrote:
Level3 had an issue with one of their core routers in Los Angeles last
night(7pm Pacific) and early this morning(1am Pacific). Last update to my
trouble ticket had the issue still being reviewed by engineering, but
This is a side issue, but I'm surprised ARIN is still advertising incorrect
information in the table. A small ISP client of mine had just received their
first /23 earlier this year, and I convinced them they should deploy IPv6 along
with IPv4 in their new PoP. It would cost nothing, I argued,
On 09-07-15 23:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 09/07/2015 22:35, Ricky Beam wrote:
Free if you have a support contract.
No, free-as-in-beer.
You register a guest CCO account, email t...@cisco.com, provide the device
serial number (or output of show hardware) and the bugid + Cisco PSIRT
URL
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For
On Jul 9, 2015, at 23:33 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 7/9/2015 3:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Can you offer one valid reason not to give residential users /48s? Any
benefit whatsoever?
Sure. To avoid having to go back and deal with ARIN yet again for more IPv6
My solution would be to tell them if they want more than 1 IPv4 /32, they need
a router.
Then route a prefix of appropriate size to their router.
/48 for IPv6 as you are doing, and /n for IPv4.
They want 2 addresses, give them a /30. 3-6, /29; 7-14, /28, etc.
Seems pretty straight forward to
Hi,
No SLA broken cause A- and B-End were not directly our circuits ... but it
helps a lot to place some new orders ... at other partners :).
best regards
Jürgen Jaritsch
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Jens Hoffmann
Gesendet:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 03:57 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On Jul 9, 2015, at 11:53 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:33:25 -0700, Matthew Kaufman said:
One of the hopeful outcomes of IPv6 adoption was that an ISP could get
enough to last forever
On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 03:57 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On Jul 9, 2015, at 11:53 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 23:33:25 -0700, Matthew Kaufman said:
One of the hopeful
On Jul 9, 2015, at 23:08 , Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Actually I was mentioning thousands.
Dozens, millions, whatever. Pick something and get on with it already.
I don’t know anyone that’s going to get
On Jul 10, 2015, at 00:59 , Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
There has been tomes on this topic. There will continue to be many more.
That is because many of you continue in trying to defend the following
concept.
customer subnet bits == isp customers bits
So now, the ISP is
Hi,
Wow Level3 responded to me that they had an issue last night but
they simply did nothing ... for at least 10 hours they did nothing to fix the
issue:
Any SLA broken? Probably not, that would be a reason to move.
Kind regards,
Jens
John,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy to abide by the original community
decision, but I think it's important that the table be clarified, especially
given that the ARIN specialist I worked with agreed that it needs clarification.
It's like going to a Starbucks as a homeless person
On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Mel Beckman
m...@beckman.orgmailto:m...@beckman.org wrote:
This is a side issue, but I'm surprised ARIN is still advertising incorrect
information in the table.
...
Are you saying that there is no way to get an IPv6 allocation in the xx-small
category?
ARIN: Yes.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Paul Hoogsteder maili...@meanie.nl wrote:
On 09-07-15 23:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 09/07/2015 22:35, Ricky Beam wrote:
Free if you have a support contract.
No, free-as-in-beer.
You register a guest CCO account, email t...@cisco.com, provide the device
Hi NANOG,
Does anyone have any technical contacts at Joker.com? I am going in circles
with their support folks trying to update the GLUE records for two of my
nameservers and keep running into permissions issues despite the glue
records clearly being part of my domain.
I need to speak to someone
Wow Level3 responded to me that they had an issue last night but they
simply did nothing ... for at least 10 hours they did nothing to fix the issue:
###
Event Case ID: 9446216
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Impacted For: 10 hours 52 minutes
ETR: Unknown
Bridge: N/A
08:52 GMT - Event
In message cal9jlaba5no6yq99crhdgrthtsb0vgp3gdneu-vu2-4r_1_...@mail.gmail.com
, Christopher Morrow writes:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is allowed =
for in the future but not configured in the
Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they can
put it off till later then that's often good politics.
-mel via cell
On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
cal9jlaba5no6yq99crhdgrthtsb0vgp3gdneu-vu2-4r_1_...@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
+1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if
you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just waiting
to see a RA.
What I noticed when I ran a transparent HTTP proxy at my
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 10 21:14:43 2015 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
BGP Update Report
Interval: 02-Jul-15 -to- 09-Jul-15 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS9829 220585 5.2% 195.7 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet
Backbone,IN
2 - AS23752
On Jul 10, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Mel Beckman
m...@beckman.orgmailto:m...@beckman.org wrote:
John,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy to abide by the original community
decision, but I think it's important that the table be clarified, especially
given that the ARIN specialist I worked with
In message a24f7cf2-0cd8-4eba-a211-07bc36988...@beckman.org, Mel Beckman writ
es:
Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they
can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
-mel via cell
IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go IPv6-only from day
There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you
realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been worth
the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the total.
The bug that this crash impacts is in ASA was introduced in 9.1(4.3)
and fixed in 9.1(5.1) and later. Are you inside the affected version
range? If not, it's not the bug being discussed here. If so, you may
wish to upgrade.
Cheers,
Christoph
On 10 July 2015 at 12:56, Eddie Tardist
Thank you!
-mel via cell
On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:19 PM, John Curran
jcur...@arin.netmailto:jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jul 10, 2015, at 4:06 PM, Mel Beckman
m...@beckman.orgmailto:m...@beckman.org wrote:
John,
Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy to abide by the original community
In message 20150710215658.gc23...@puck.nether.net, Jared Mauch writes:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
+1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if
you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just waiting
to see a
Limited municipal budgets is all I can say.
IPv6 has a cost, and if they can put it off
till later then that's often good politics.
IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go
IPv6-only from day one and not pay the IPv4
tax at all.
The cost difference between providing IPv6 +
IPv4 or
1.1.1.1 is usually a good bet
On Jul 10, 2015 6:21 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20150710215658.gc23...@puck.nether.net, Jared Mauch writes:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
+1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being
In message da95983c-71f1-4aa6-b431-2f2ffd515...@beckman.org, Mel Beckman writ
es:
There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure
you realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:08:15PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you
realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been
worth the
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Christoph Blecker cblec...@gmail.com
wrote:
The bug that this crash impacts is in ASA was introduced in 9.1(4.3)
and fixed in 9.1(5.1) and later. Are you inside the affected version
range? If not, it's not the bug being discussed here. If so, you may
wish to
84 matches
Mail list logo