Exactly, many previous unsuccessful discussions at IETF about 240/4: IPv6 is
the only viable long-term solution.
The effort to “reinvent” any part of IPv4 or patches to it, then test that
everything keeps working as expected, versus the benefits and gained time, it
is much best invested in c
> On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:44 PM, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> IIRC, at some time, perhaps when CIDR was deployed widely and
> having something other than IPv4 was a hot topic, there was a
> discussion on releasing 240/4 in IETF. Reasonings against it were
> that the released space will be consumed
Verizon Wireless does have v6. I see a 100.64/24 on my phone all the time.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:11 PM John Covici wrote:
> Verizon does not support ipv6 as far as I know, I have fios and they
> said it was not supported.
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:20:48 -0500,
> John Levine wrote:
> >
> >
Verizon does not support ipv6 as far as I know, I have fios and they
said it was not supported.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:20:48 -0500,
John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Joe Maimon said:
> >higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more
> >conservatively as
> >
> >Google's st
On Mar 11, 2022, at 12:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>> higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more
>> conservatively as
>>
>> Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the
>> large content provider arena which have a str
It appears that Joe Maimon said:
>higher penetration of native v6, I would restate that a bit more
>conservatively as
>
>Google's statistics are likely a fair barometer for USA usage in the
>large content provider arena which have a strong mobile representation.
AT&T, Comcast, and Charter/Spect
Hi, Ca By:
1) Re: Ur. Pt. 1) " ... the number is 46% in the USA. ": Whoa!
Your revised number is even higher. And, I could round it up to 50%!
Seriously, please be specific about where are you reading the number
that you are reporting? I commented after reading your second reference,
b
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 5:17 PM Aaron Wendel
wrote:
> I think you're reading it incorrectly.
>
> The US government and many other countries have imposed sanctions
> against Russia and barred businesses in those countries from doing
> business in Russia. Cogent is a US based company and, even if i
Clarification, Google Chrome has its own root CA revocation/CRL program. It
does still rely on the operating system root CA trust store.
Using a typical intranet/RFC1918 IP space environment as an example, as you
might see in any $BIGCORP, if you install your own choice of root CA in the
Windows 1
Considering that 99% of non-technical end users of windows, macos, android,
ios client devices *have no idea what a root CA is,* if an authoritarian
regime can mandate the installation of a government-run root CA in the
operating system CA trust store of all new devices sold at retail, as
equipment
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...
Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
I believe that talking about removing IPv4 in any capacity /now/ is a
disservice to the larger conversation.
We mostly agree. Except that there is a significant vocal portion of the
IPv6 spectrum that would like to start obsoleting IPv4 now.
I have my doub
On 3/11/22 9:39 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
I am not really convinced that IPv4 can be
ignored/marginalized/obsoleted without penetration reaching over 90%,
globally.
I feel like that's an unfair characterization / summarization.
The VAST MAJORITY of the pro IPv6 discussions that I see are targetin
Ca By wrote:
Google’s number represents how many users reach it over ipv6. Given
Google’s ubiquity in the usa, it is a fair barometer for the usa at
large.
Given google's popularity on handheld platforms, the users of which tend
to be much less sensitive to IPv4 translation mechanisms
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 6:36 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> 1)Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our IETF
> Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of the 240/4
> topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact, coincided with that of
> RF
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Dear Ca By:
>
> 1)It appears that you are reading the Google graph too optimistically,
> or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph are about 38%. The
> average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%" from these is a g
Dear Ca By:
1) It appears that you are reading the Google graph too
optimistically, or incorrectly. That is, the highest peaks of the graph
are about 38%. The average of the graph is about 36%. Citing "over 40%"
from these is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the peaks were reached on
weekend
Sylvain,
Thank you for posting this plausible scenario. It is this kind of bad effect
that I’m concerned about.
Consider also that the document doesn’t specify government specifically, only
“agencies“, without defining what those are. I think it’s quite possible that a
future operational team
Hi, Bill:
1) Thanks for the reference. However, Informative Reference 7 of our
IETF Draft cites another IANA document which puts the initial date of
the 240/4 topic back to 1981-09 which was much earlier, in fact,
coincided with that of RFC 791.
2) My curiosity questions were not about
Dear NANOG-ers,
Hope this email finds you in good health!
Please see my comments below, inline...
Le vendredi 11 mars 2022, Brandon Price a
écrit :
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf
> Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:37 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subj
More likely a couple hundred ms. I believe what is being seen is the
result of Cogent trying to get established in Asia. They won't pay to
peer with the established players, and those players don't want Cogent
disrupting their market, so their peering in Asia is rather poor. If
you're succes
21 matches
Mail list logo
