> On Feb 10, 2021, at 09:50 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote>
>> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
>> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
>> ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> So that answers the
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 06:11 , Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> Ca By writes:
>
>> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
>> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
>> ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> I certainly agree that this is easier and
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 04:29 , Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>> Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
>> without running out of
>> addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> OK.. I'll bite.
On 2/10/21 19:50, Doug Barton wrote:
I also reject the premise that any org, no matter how large, needs to
uniquely number every endpoint. When I was doing IPAM for a living,
not allowing the workstations in Tucson to talk to the printers in
Singapore was considered a feature.
Any DNSSEC experts that could help with a question about a specific domain?
Off-list please.
thanks,
-Randy
Matt, thank you for the notes, very helpful!
(Also, sorry for dropping out of the BoF, my ISP decided it was time for some
downtime, I hope they'll get it sorted)
Elmar.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:30 PM Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Cynthia Revström via NANOG wrote:
> > certain large corporations that have run out of RFC1918, etc. space
>
> At what level of incompetence must an organization operate to squander
> roughly 70,000 /24
Ahem… slides are linked… you must click on the talk title under the “Topic”
column of the agenda.
Cheers,
Valerie
Valerie Wittkop - NANOG Program Director
305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Tel: +1 866 902 1336, ext 103
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Matthew Petach
Thank you for this!
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:00 Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> It was mentioned in the chat this morning that
> there was no link to slides or anything on the agenda
> for the community meeting that happened this morning,
> so I offered to share the notes I was jotting down during
It was mentioned in the chat this morning that
there was no link to slides or anything on the agenda
for the community meeting that happened this morning,
so I offered to share the notes I was jotting down during
the meeting, to give an idea of what was covered for those
in timelines not as
On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote>
The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it
is ipv6-only, afaik.
So that answers the question of how to scale networks past what can be
done with 1918 space.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:11 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ca By writes:
>
> > The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
> > address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
> > ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> I certainly agree that this is easier and
Ca By writes:
> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
> ipv6-only, afaik.
I certainly agree that this is easier and makes more sense. I just
don't buy the "can't be done" wrt using
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:50 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ca By writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks <
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> >> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with
Ca By writes:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
>> without running out of
>> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
Owen DeLong writes:
> Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> If you can’t, then I’m not the one making excuses.
You added "without ..." and did not explain why. This does
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks
wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> OK.. I'll bite. What
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
OK.. I'll bite. What network design needs 40M endpoints and can't tolerate
partitioned
Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
without running out of
addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
If you can’t, then I’m not the one making excuses.
Owen
> On Feb 9, 2021, at 15:44 , Izaac wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 02:36:57PM
19 matches
Mail list logo
