Re: IPv6 doc. prefix (2001:db8::/32) - APNIC object ?

In message <6bcda810-52cd-4efe-9a69-4b1aabc90...@burn.net>, Brandon Applegate writes: > Just did a whois on the documentation prefix and was surprised to see > what looks like a user object registered for it: > > % Information related to '2001:0DB8::/32AS132111' > > route6:

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > Lets not even get into the fact that we still can't fully utilize things > like already established standards such as ECN, EDNS, and PMTUD effectively > because firewall and security vendors still can't extricate their heads

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On 3/6/17 10:16 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 03:08:35 -0500, Joly MacFie said: routing hardware layer that will be hit & miss. Nevertheless, since much of the world is still IPv4 dependent, it just could take off. For it to "take off", the very same people who have

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

In message <59f04cec29296d59f589ee671c65edc8.squirrel@66.201.44.180>, "Bob Evans" writes: > I have had ipv4 transit with ATT for years (one provider of many)and > the order originally placed was for both ipv4 and 6yep still waiting. > > Thank You > Bob Evans > CTO Cancel your service

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

I have had ipv4 transit with ATT for years (one provider of many)and the order originally placed was for both ipv4 and 6yep still waiting. Thank You Bob Evans CTO > On 3/6/17 14:04, Dennis Burgess wrote: >> Well try to get ATT to announce IPv6 though our AS! Lol Been on the >> phone

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On 6 Mar 2017, at 22:00, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > Encode extra address bits in extension headers. Add a network element near > the destination that converts such that the destination IP of a packet to IP > a.b.c.d with extension header containing e.f is translated

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On 3/6/17 14:04, Dennis Burgess wrote: Well try to get ATT to announce IPv6 though our AS! Lol Been on the phone with the for over a month. Still no ETA :( Requests driven from the sales side should have the best results. Before Charter's sales turned into a hole of poor service, I had a

RE: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

Well try to get ATT to announce IPv6 though our AS! Lol Been on the phone with the for over a month. Still no ETA :( Dennis Burgess - Network Solution Engineer - Consultant MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant - MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

I think only 22% of networks with an AS announce IPv6 space. Is that correct ? Thank You Bob Evans CTO > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: >> Major ISPs have IPv6 support now. It is >> the sites (=servers) that are lacking. > > Hi Baldur, >

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Major ISPs have IPv6 support now. It is > the sites (=servers) that are lacking. Hi Baldur, Not exactly. My Verizon FiOS does not support IPv6. Neither does my Cox Cable Internet. My Verizon Wireless service

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

That proposal is far too wordy. Here is the executive summary: Encode extra address bits in extension headers. Add a network element near the destination that converts such that the destination IP of a packet to IP a.b.c.d with extension header containing e.f is translated to 192.168.e.f. In

RE: www.netflix.com / EC2 problem -- Persistent problems from Palo Alto to destinations to Netflix and other destinations with content on Amazon EC2 - 2000ms latency

First version got a little munged: I'm not making progress with GTT's NOC on this issue, can someone clued in at Netflix or Amazon comment on this problem. I believe it started after Amazons outage last week. This is an MTR to www.netflix.com (52.5.161.36) from

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

In a message written on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:16:32PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > Oh, and you're going to need support buy-in from *at least* Microsoft, Apple, > Linux, Cisco, Juniper, and a significant chunk of major makers of CPE gear. Valdis is just spouting a bunch of fake

www.netflix.com / EC2 problem -- Persistent problems from Palo Alto to destinations to Netflix and other destinations with content on Amazon EC2 - 2000ms latency

I'm not making progress with GTT's NOC on this issue, can someone clued in at Netflix or Amazon comment on this problem. I believe it started after Amazons outage last week. This is an MTR to www.netflix.com (52.5.161.36) from 208.71.159.3 . this should be just a

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 03:08:35 -0500, Joly MacFie said: > routing hardware layer that will be hit & miss. Nevertheless, since much of > the world is still IPv4 dependent, it just could take off. For it to "take off", the very same people who have dragged their heels deploying IPv6 will need to

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

I believe that. However it behooves us to give any of our members' ideas a fair hearing. I'm hoping he'll get some good push back in the session. Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com 218 565 9365 On Mar 6, 2017 11:14 AM, "William Herrin" wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Joly

Re: WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > To say that Mr. Chen's EZIP proposal has not, thus far, been received with > open arms by the networking community would be an understatement. It is > seen as delaying the inevitable and introducing an impractical extra >

Re: IPv6 doc. prefix (2001:db8::/32) - APNIC object ?

Hi. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On lun. 6 mars 10:55:18 2017, Brandon Applegate wrote: >> Just did a whois on the documentation prefix and was surprised to see what >> looks like a user object registered for it: >> >> % Information related to

Re: IPv6 doc. prefix (2001:db8::/32) - APNIC object ?

Hi, On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Brandon Applegate wrote: > Just did a whois on the documentation prefix and was surprised to see what > looks like a user object registered for it: > > % Information related to '2001:0DB8::/32AS132111' > > route6: 2001:0DB8::/32 >

Re: IPv6 doc. prefix (2001:db8::/32) - APNIC object ?

On lun. 6 mars 10:55:18 2017, Brandon Applegate wrote: > Just did a whois on the documentation prefix and was surprised to see what > looks like a user object registered for it: > > % Information related to '2001:0DB8::/32AS132111' > > route6: 2001:0DB8::/32 > descr: FUTURE D

IPv6 doc. prefix (2001:db8::/32) - APNIC object ?

Just did a whois on the documentation prefix and was surprised to see what looks like a user object registered for it: % Information related to '2001:0DB8::/32AS132111' route6: 2001:0DB8::/32 descr: FUTURE D SDN BHD origin: AS132111 country:MY mnt-by:

Re: WWV Broadcast Outages

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote: > > On 3/6/2017 3:55 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:59:53AM -0800, Hal Murray wrote: >>> >>> Any suggestions for gear and/or software that works with WWV (or CHU)? >>> Or general suggestions for non

Re: WWV Broadcast Outages

On 3/6/2017 3:55 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:59:53AM -0800, Hal Murray wrote: Any suggestions for gear and/or software that works with WWV (or CHU)? Or general suggestions for non GPS sources of time? Hey Hal! In North America, WWV and CHU are pretty

Re: WWV Broadcast Outages

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:59:53AM -0800, Hal Murray wrote: > Any suggestions for gear and/or software that works with WWV (or CHU)? > Or general suggestions for non GPS sources of time? Hey Hal! In North America, WWV and CHU are pretty much it for accessible backups these

WEBINAR TUESDAY: Can We Make IPv4 Great Again?

To say that Mr. Chen's EZIP proposal has not, thus far, been received with open arms by the networking community would be an understatement. It is seen as delaying the inevitable and introducing an impractical extra routing hardware layer that will be hit & miss. Nevertheless, since much of the