Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Wait… You’re trying to convince me that it’s easier to understand “You have this box in the way. It blocks many of the packets you want and some of the packets you don’t want. It also does weird things to the header in the process.” than it is to understand “You have this box. By default it only

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> Is a techno-colonialiasm the end result of some sort of musical/military > fetish? http://psg.com/on-technocolonialism.html > On reflection I think I was wrong about the /26 anyway. quite. and your dates are fuzzy too. but not really relevant. randy

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally was a > cardboard box that contained everything one needed to get started on the > Internet. Just add a modem and a computer, and you were on your way. No > fuss, no "

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 21:15 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > The big difference between IPv4 initial policies and IPv6 initial > > policies is that with IPv4 there were no policies to speak of in the > > early days. Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US > > organisations ended up w

Re: BIS re-regulating crypto is on the table...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Actually, this is *not* about crypto at all, it is about "exploitations" tools, pen testing, vulnerability exposure, etc. See also: https://threatpost.com/security-researchers-sound-off-on-proposed-us-was senaar-rules/113023 And as a matter of fac

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> the pre netsol allocations by sri, isc usc, sigh

BIS re-regulating crypto is on the table...

if you use crypto (antivirus, mmap, etc.) or encrypt your data, use VPNs, etc… you might want to read and comment. Comment period closes next week. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/05/20/2015-11642/wassenaar-arrangement-2013-plenary-agreements-implementation-intrusion-and-surveilla

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

> The big difference between IPv4 initial policies and IPv6 initial > policies is that with IPv4 there were no policies to speak of in the > early days. Space was handed out more or less willy-nilly - so some US > organisations ended up with multiple A-classes each, while later on all > of Vietnam

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 09:23 -0400, George Metz wrote: > It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the > insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6 > depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner > than one might

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

> While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic > curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator for > what is happening. we're an isp, with ipv6 enabled since 1997. we measure real traffic, not wishes of what could be. randy

RE: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Randy Bush wrote: > > I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the > > distraction might help with those still holding out hope. > > i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is increasing > slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire. Are you p

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

> Since IPV6 does not have NAT, http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/ipv6-nat-overview.html, but perhaps you meant something else. > it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. Not really. I suspect a stateful firewall for IPv6 will loo

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

This stuff has been consumerized. If you walk into any vzw store you can for $99 and $60 a month no contract walk out with a mifi with v6. You don't even have to ask, or configure anything, pretty much as it should be, the consumer wants internet, Facebook email, and all the upper layer services

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

On Jul 14, 2015, at 7:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :) SHOUT LOUDER! signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:33:39 -0400, Curtis Maurand said: > Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman > to understand their firewall. Like "the layman" actually understand what a PS3 means by "NAT Type 2" without consulting Google? pgpeqQ_4S0wzb.pgp Description:

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:51:25 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg said: > Are we *still* doing this argument?!? > > block all > pass out on $extif keep state > > Is it that fucking difficult for people to figure out? Really? But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :) pgpRo85NVvJFi.pgp Descr

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > IPv6 is not the last protocol known to mankind. IF it burns out in 400-500 > years, something will have gone terribly wrong, because newer ideas about > networking will have been squashed along the way. 64 bits for both hosts and > routing was ove

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to > understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on > the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the > clients get ev

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

On Jul 14, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to > understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the > otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get > eve

Re: Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

15. Jul 2015 01:33 by cmaur...@xyonet.com: > > Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to > understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on > the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the > clients get everything

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

In message <55a5b873.5010...@xyonet.com>, Curtis Maurand writes: > > Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman > to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. > ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, > all the

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall. -C

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

In Japan, they had that on a CD in 1994, just after the law changed. Lines snaked across the floor at Interop in the huge new Makuhari Messe conference center in Chiba. -jsq > Stephen Satchell wrote: > > This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally > > was a cardboard bo

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

On 7/14/2015 8:02 PM, Mike wrote: The flame wars and vitrol and rhetoric is too much noise for me to derive anything useful from. Someone needs to stand up and lead. I will happily follow. "Too much noise" has been v6's problem from the start. Every time I've looked at v6 for use in the ente

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

Stephen Satchell wrote: This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally was a cardboard box that contained everything one needed to get started on the Internet. Just add a modem and a computer, and you were on your way. No fuss, no "learning curve". I'm beginning to th

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message , George Metz writes: > That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years ago > if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 addresses > in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark raving > mad. I did that math ~30 years

nanog@nanog.org

AT&T does a kind of spam filtering on texts. AFAIK the only solution is to either send your texts via one of AT&T’s pay-for messaging channels, or get the receiving party to complain to their AT&T support rep. If you’re the receiving party, just call and say you want to whitelist an SMS source.

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

Mike, I agree that something like that needs to be done. Maybe I’ll do it. In the meantime, have you got an IPv6 lab set up? I’m guessing that with your /32 allocation in hand, you likely do. Have you run through HE.net’s excellent personal IPv6 certification program? Until you gain fluency in

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 7/14/15 6:23 AM, George Metz wrote: It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6 depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner than one might expect. I've been t

nanog@nanog.org

I am having a problem that started last Friday. Text messages sent from my domain seem to be being blocked by AT&T. Does anyone have a direct contact at AT&T who might be able to assist us in getting unblocked? Thank you in advance for any assistance you can offer. Ronda

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years ago if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 addresses in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were stark raving mad. That's what's really got most of the people who want (dare I say more

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally was a > cardboard box that contained everything one needed to get started on the > Internet. Just add a modem and a computer, and you were on your way. No > fuss,

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Nicholas Warren wrote: > Surely Microsoft has IPv6 connectivity? Is there a problem with my dns, or is > Microsoft not available over v6? > > Thanks, > Nich > probably not Google DNS filtering test point 1 $ dig e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net @n0dspb.akamaied

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

On 07/14/2015 04:46 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally was a cardboard box that contained everything one needed to get started on the Internet. Just add a modem and a computer, and you were on your way. No fuss, no "learning cur

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the > layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake. Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home and in the datac

Re: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally was a > cardboard box that contained everything one needed to get started on the > Internet. Just add a modem and a computer, and you were on your way. No > fuss,

Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

This goes back a number of years. There was a product that literally was a cardboard box that contained everything one needed to get started on the Internet. Just add a modem and a computer, and you were on your way. No fuss, no "learning curve". I'm beginning to think that someone needs to

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

For one thing a /32 is nowhere near enough for anything bigger than a modest ISP today. Many will need /28, /24, or even larger. The biggest ones probably need /16 or even /12 in some cases. Owen On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:53, John R. Levine wrote: >> We're talking about end user assignments

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake. --Curtis On 7/14/2015 7:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

> I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the > distraction might help with those still holding out hope. i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is increasing slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire. randy

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

In message <002f01d0be76$52b0c800$f8125800$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own > PI space? > > Chuck For the home dual PA prefixes + ULA with CPE routers that support source and destination based routing automatically

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

Hello, folks! I have finished multiple (and 5th in RIPE) inter RIR subnet moves in RIPE region. We have moved multiple /21-/20 networks and awerage cost was about $10 per ip. On Tuesday, July 14, 2015, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Matt Kelly > wrote: > > > This li

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Or wait ILNP/ILA https://lwn.net/Articles/647515/ > On 15 июля 2015 г., at 0:09, Matthew Huff wrote: > > Exactly. > > As a business entity and not a provider, we wouldn't have even contemplated > deploying IPv6 without PI addresses. The myth of easy renumbering and/or > having multiple prefix

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:22 PM, wrote: >>> Hi, >>> No. My DNS (using the roots) gets it right. ;-) >>> >>> so if you choose google DNS you dont see the right stuff..in which

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

Umm, ok so your saying you get records for "microsoft.com" I am Not talking about www.microsoft.com I agree that it has records. But the request was for "microsoft.com" And as noted other domains without the WWW might not have Records. Sincerely, Mark Keymer CFO/COO Vivio Tech

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:22 PM, wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> No. My DNS (using the roots) gets it right. ;-) >> >> so if you choose google DNS you dont see the right stuff..in which case its >> your DNS >> and not microsoft or Akamai not do

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:22 PM, wrote: > Hi, > >> No. My DNS (using the roots) gets it right. ;-) > > so if you choose google DNS you dont see the right stuff..in which case its > your DNS > and not microsoft or Akamai not doing IPv6 ;-)same true for OpenDNS? > likely... Dude, it was a

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

Hi, > No. My DNS (using the roots) gets it right. ;-) so if you choose google DNS you dont see the right stuff..in which case its your DNS and not microsoft or Akamai not doing IPv6 ;-)same true for OpenDNS? likely... alan

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Exactly. As a business entity and not a provider, we wouldn't have even contemplated deploying IPv6 without PI addresses. The myth of easy renumbering and/or having multiple prefixes/address per host for failover still shows up from time to time, but mostly gets ignored (at least in the corpora

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own PI space? This is IPv6. Why shouldn't they have their own PI space? R's, John

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

What about dual-homed customers? Or are they all expected to have their own PI space? Chuck -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mel Beckman Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:33 PM To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Cc: John Levine; nanog@nanog.org Subject:

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM, wrote: > Hi, > >> And there isn't > > > its your DNS ;-) No. My DNS (using the roots) gets it right. ;-) The failure is somewhere between Google Public DNS's IPv4 servers and Akamai. See my earlier post. -Jim P.

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Ok. Two RIB entries for Comcast. Your argument doesn't scale. -mel via cell On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:53 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:45:42 -, Mel Beckman said: We're talking about end user assignm

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

Hi, however...this revelation is shocking...my users can access www.microsoft.com material via IPv6?? turn this filth off!! ;-) alan

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

Hi, > And there isn't its your DNS ;-) host e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net has address 104.70.251.201 e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net has IPv6 address 2a02:26f0:cb:2a4::2768 e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net has IPv6 address 2a02:26f0:cb:29a::2768 alan

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Jared Mauch wrote: www.microsoft.com seems to pass these checks for me: http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php Perhaps they have some other site that doesn't have it enabled? http://www.mrp.net/cgi-bin/ipv6-status.cgi SMTP fails for both microsoft.com and xbo

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

I expect to be actively involved at least 20 more years. If I'm not around, thats 160 years to runout. I'm betting the protocol can't live that long for other reasons. Owen > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:35, Mel Beckman wrote: > > I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential sub

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:45:42 -, Mel Beckman said: > We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP assignments. Do the math for how big a chunk Comcast needs, assuming they give each residential customer a /60, or a /56, or a /48. If their first chunk was sized based on ubiqui

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Josh Luthman > wrote: >> There is > > And there isn't > > ~$ dig -t www.microsoft.com +short > toggle.www.ms.akadns.net. > www.microsoft.com-c.edgekey.net. > www.microsoft.com-c.edgekey.net.globalredir.a

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

I agree that www.microsoft.com passes. But it looks like microsoft.com does not. sincerely, Mark Keymer CFO/COO Vivio Technologies On 7/14/2015 12:39 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: www.microsoft.com seems to pass these checks for me: http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php Perhaps they ha

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > There is And there isn't ~$ dig -t www.microsoft.com +short toggle.www.ms.akadns.net. www.microsoft.com-c.edgekey.net. www.microsoft.com-c.edgekey.net.globalredir.akadns.net. e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net. ~$ host e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.n

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP assignments. An ISP's /32 is likely the only entry one needs in the FIB. -mel beckman > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:41 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" > wrote: > > On 14 Jul 2015 18:44:25 -, "John Levine" said: > >> routers does n

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

We're talking about end user assignments made by ISPs, not ISP assignments. An ISP's /32 is likely the only entry one needs in the FIB. In that case, why should anyone care how the ISP assigns space to its customers? R's, John

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

In article you write: >Surely Microsoft has IPv6 connectivity? Is there a problem with my dns, or is >Microsoft not available over v6? Looks like it's your DNS. ; <<>> DiG 9.10.2-P2 <<>> www.microsoft.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

Microsoft is highly IPv6 connected. nslookup >set type= >www.microsoft.com. Server: 206.83.0.42 Address:206.83.0.42#53 Non-authoritative answer: www.microsoft.com canonical name = toggle.www.ms.akadns.net. toggle.www.ms.akadns.netcanonical name = www.microsoft.

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

Which property are you trying to access? Bing? Azure? O365? Something else? On Jul 14, 2015 12:34 PM, "Nicholas Warren" wrote: > Surely Microsoft has IPv6 connectivity? Is there a problem with my dns, or > is Microsoft not available over v6? > > Thanks, > Nich > >

Re: M$ no v6 or just me?

There is C:\Users\jluthman>dig -t www.microsoft.com +short toggle.www.ms.akadns.net. www.microsoft.com-c.edgekey.net. www.microsoft.com-c.edgekey.net.globalredir.akadns.net. e10088.dspb.akamaiedge.net. 2600:1407:10:390::2768 2600:1407:10:389::2768 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 9

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On 14 Jul 2015 18:44:25 -, "John Levine" said: > routers does not. The right way to allocate v6 space is the first > time someone asks for some, give them as much as they'll ever need. > If you give them less and they have to come back for more later, > you've wasted a router slot. Amen. In

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential subscribers. Neither do I mind if they give out /56s. That still gives every residential customer 256 /64 subnets. I don't see this as something that needs to become a standard. Those end-users who want more can ask for more fro their

M$ no v6 or just me?

Surely Microsoft has IPv6 connectivity? Is there a problem with my dns, or is Microsoft not available over v6? Thanks, Nich

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Mel Beckman wrote: > Owen, > > By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything > wrong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Actually 30 years ago it was very difficult to get a /8 even for a US Gov organization. I have firsthand experience with being r

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

>I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our >spanking new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable >caution. It's optimizing for the wrong thing. While the supply of IPv6 addresses exceeds any plausible demand, the supply of route slots in routers does not

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

"Tony Hain" writes: > Owen DeLong wrote: > > I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! > > That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy > requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it > would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", s

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

You don’t think holding nearly 7/8ths of the address space in reserve for a future addressing policy is adequate judiciuosness? The IPv4 /8s constituted 1/2 of the address space. The /16s another 1/4, and the /24s an additional 1/8th at the time. Overall, that was 7/8ths of the address space ass

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

My proposal to dump the rest of the v4 space this way was rejected as a policy proposal already. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Jul 14, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! > > That would take too long to get

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Owen, By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wrong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Companies that for the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. History cuts both ways. I think it's reasonable to

RE: Overlay broad patent on IPv6?

There is prior art here, and likely patents held by HP http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bound-dstm-exp-04 > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur > Norddahl > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:10 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Fwd: Overlay

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

30 years ago, if you’d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using the internet 30 years ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad. If you asked anyone 30 years ago “will 4 billion internet addresses be enough if everyone ends up using the internet?”, they all would have tol

RE: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Owen DeLong wrote: > I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", so the lack of fee income would not

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! (just kidding) Owen > On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. wrote: > > If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated > their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now. > > https://www.arin.ne

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Matt Kelly wrote: > This list is actual sale prices, > http://www.ipv4auctions.com/previous_auctions/ > > > -- > Matt > > > On July 14, 2015 at 10:14:05 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN (li...@mtin.net) > wrote: > > Thes folks (and I am not advertising or affiliated with

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

This list is actual sale prices, http://www.ipv4auctions.com/previous_auctions/ --  Matt On July 14, 2015 at 10:14:05 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN (li...@mtin.net) wrote: Thes folks (and I am not advertising or affiliated with them) publish a list of most recent transfer completed: http://ipv4

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

Thes folks (and I am not advertising or affiliated with them) publish a list of most recent transfer completed: http://ipv4marketgroup.com/broker-services/buy/ Justin --- Justin Wilson http://www.mtin.net Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 15:39 14/07/2015 +0200, Seth Mos wrote: > >> We had the same thing finding a broker for a /24 pi in the RIPE region. >> Not all of the brokers have the size you want, eg a /20 when you need a /24. >> > > > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ip

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

At 15:39 14/07/2015 +0200, Seth Mos wrote: We had the same thing finding a broker for a /24 pi in the RIPE region. Not all of the brokers have the size you want, eg a /20 when you need a /24. https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/brokers https://

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

We had the same thing finding a broker for a /24 pi in the RIPE region. Not all of the brokers have the size you want, eg a /20 when you need a /24. It ends up being between 2500 to 4000 euros depending on notary fees and if you already have a LIR agreement. Cheers Oorspronkelijk bericht

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Nicholas Warren wrote: > Where is one of these v4 markets that we can buy some IPv4 space from? > Google search is failing me for some reason.. Google "buy IPv4 addresses." The first four links are places facilitating sales. -- William Herrin

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

Even if we're happy with our current v4 allocations, I think seeing what sort of rates blocks are going for (even if they're anonymized) would be nice. Prefix length and $ would I think be the relevent items. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Mid

'gray' market IPv4

Where is one of these v4 markets that we can buy some IPv4 space from? I would prefer to have a place where we could see recent transactions, something along the lines of x amount of addresses for y amount of monies. Google search is failing me for some reason.. - Thanks, Nich

ARIN IPV4 Countdown

If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now. https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html Robert D. Scottrob...@ufl.edu Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone UF Info