Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Ca By wrote: > NAT is bad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8

IANA AS Numbers registry update

Hi, The IANA AS Numbers registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of the following block to LACNIC in September 2016: 265629-266652 Assigned by LACNIC 2016-09-08 You can find the IANA AS Numbers registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

I agree with Karl. We use the ULA space for our internal test labs. The /48's we have in use get routed around internally but have no chance of leaking to the internet. Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net Arbor Networks +1.734.794.5033 (d) |

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 23:43 +, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > both ways - if we decide to use it we'll have to either overlay it > with public IPv6 space (and provide the NAT/proxy for where we don't > have any public IPv6 assigned) or simply not use the fc00::/7 and > skip the NAT/proxy aspects of

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: > With NAT I have a single entry/exit point to those infrastructure subnets > which can be easily policed. > If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach > the internet via devices that don't

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

Hi, That's why I asked the question - if anyone actually puts its as an additional IP on their interfaces to keep it simple (and in-line with IPv4 policies, address allocation schemes, etc) or not. I can see the argument both ways - if we decide to use it we'll have to either overlay it with

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

In message , Pshem Kowalczyk writes: > With NAT I have a single entry/exit point to those infrastructure subnets > which can be easily policed. > If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach > the

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 23:09:28 -, Pshem Kowalczyk said: > If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach > the internet via devices that don't police the traffic. They can potentially reach the Internet even without public IPs. All it takes is one idiot with a

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

You can also easily police a subnet. On Sep 8, 2016 6:11 PM, "Pshem Kowalczyk" wrote: > With NAT I have a single entry/exit point to those infrastructure subnets > which can be easily policed. > If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach > the

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

With NAT I have a single entry/exit point to those infrastructure subnets which can be easily policed. If I give them public IPs then they're routable and potentially can reach the internet via devices that don't police the traffic. My real question is does anyone bother with the fc00::/7

Re: Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

In message , Pshem Kowalczyk writes: > Hi, > > We're looking at rolling out IPv6 to our internal DC infrastructure. Those > systems support only our internal network and in the IPv4 world they all > live in 'private' space of

Use of unique local IPv6 addressing rfc4193

Hi, We're looking at rolling out IPv6 to our internal DC infrastructure. Those systems support only our internal network and in the IPv4 world they all live in 'private' space of 10.0.0.0/8. I was wondering if anyone uses the fc00::/7 space for these sort of things or do ppl use a bit of their

Re: Optical transceiver question

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Frank Bulk wrote: Is it an industry practice to market distance based on the hot optics, not on the worst case, which is minimum TX power? No. If this is 1310nm optics with 0.4dB/km budget, the budget figure should be end-of-life figure, ie worst case according to the

NANOG 68 Peering Track Call for Participation

The NANOG Program Committee is looking for interested presenters for the NANOG 68 Peering Track (10/19/2017). If you are interested in presenting or can suggestion a presenter, please contact the NANOG Program Committee ( nano...@nanog.org) or myself. Possible topic areas are listed below, but

Amazon Contact

Hi everyone, Sorry for having to ask this, but I haven't been able to chase down anyone from Amazon. Can someone from Amazon who might be watching the list who deals with the Amazon Instant Video, FireTV, Music, and other streaming media sections please contact me off-list regarding a serious

Pandora Contact

Can someone from Pandora please contact me off-list? Thanks! Kind Regards, Shon Elliott, KK6TOO selli...@getunwired.com

Google Apps Contact

Would appreciate if someone who manages or provides support for google apps could contact me off list.  --  Alex Wacker

Re: Chinese root CA issues rogue/fake certificates

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:15:47PM -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Further update on all known suspicious activity from Wosign: > > https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:WoSign_Issues > > Seriously, what level of malice and/or incompetence does one have to rise > to in order to be removed from the Mozilla