On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> >
> > 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around
> > attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite
> as
> > the transition
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 3:48 am, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> 2) For the transition technology discussion I believe it centered around
> attempting to get a /48 to each 'site' (home/customer) and doing ds-lite as
> the transition technology in use.
> (map the customer to not a /128 in the ds-
Thanks but... that's the most elaborate "no comment" I've ever seen.
Lol... thanks ytti
-Aaron
Current ARIN policy contemplated as much as a /12 per provider and set a cap
there allowing a provider that needed more than that to only get additional /12s
rather than nibble boundary round-ups.
Owen
> On Dec 20, 2017, at 15:07 , Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 P
Owen DeLong wrote:
200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent
something much more profligate than current policies.
Profligacy based on the assumption of exhaustion impossibility needs to
be avoided. Agreed.
we've run a number conversion / renumbering on
> ok. I think a bunch of the analysis so far in this thread has basically
> assumed dense packing at teh ISP and RIR level.. which really won't happen,
> in practice anyway. I was simply stating that if we follow some of the
> examples today it's no where near as certain (I think) that '200' is ok
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> From: on behalf of Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM
> To: Lee Howard
> Cc: Mike , nanog list
> Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If we don’t end up needing to fix other things and replace the codebase
> with something that would allow us to redo the address space in the
> next 120 years, I’ll be quite surprised.
Hi Owen,
I bet you're wrong about that. I've been doin
From: on behalf of Christopher Morrow
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM
To: Lee Howard
Cc: Mike , nanog list
Subject: Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>> I’ve tried several times to come up with a scenario that lead
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Jason Iannone
wrote:
> M&A plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at
> least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide
> service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million.
>
there are less than 17m househ
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 15:09 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
>> some fun examples of the size of ipv6:
>>
>> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/
>> 2qxgxw/self_just_how_big_i
A very familiar pattern. Pretty soon, our children will be
going to intergalactic governance fora debating v6 exhaustion and dusting off
Jim Fleming’s ipv9
-srs
—srs
M&A plays into this too. By my calculations, CenturyLink controls at
least 17 million /48s. How many sites does CenturyLink provide
service to? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not 17 million.
3 acquisitions rolled up into AS209:
as3549
2605:a300::/32
2001:450::/32
as4323
2604:6680::/
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
[SNIP]
25B estimate for earth's carrying capacity for humans is likely on the
high side,
but sure: IPv6 should suffice until we have a few planets' worth of
humans,
and require an interstellar IP network with end-to-end comms between
e
On 20 December 2017 at 15:52, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 16:55, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
>
>> And for me, it sounds like faulty aggregation + shaping setup, for example,
>> i heard once if i do policing on some models of Cisco switch, on an
>> aggregated interface, if it has 4 i
Hi,
sounds like you are hosting the origin for the CDN which causes issues.
Does the CDN care where it is pulling the data from?
Could you place a cheaper origin somewhere else? Like AWS, Italy,
Katar or Amsterdam? For 150k/month you can get a lot of
bandwidth/storage/rack space somewhere else.
An
16 matches
Mail list logo