While I agree with the thrust of what Sabri is saying, let's not delude
ourselves - this is not a freedom of speech/"1st amdt." issue. The freedom of
the press does not mean the government is obligated not to favour given presses
(to include its own). That one's religion - freedom of religion
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 20:45, Niels Bakker wrote:
> The recommendation is to make Router-IDs globally unique. They're used
> in collision detection. What if you and a peer pick the same non
> globally unique address? Any session will never come up.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6286
Hi everyone.
The APRICOT 2024 Organising Committee would like to welcome everyone to
join us in Bangkok, Thailand, from 21st February to 1st March 2024.
The APRICOT 2024 Programme Committee is responsible for the solicitation
and selection of suitable presentation and tutorial content for
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:33 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 10/5/23 08:24, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> The IPv6 FIB is under the same pressure from more specifics. Its taken 20
> years to get there, but the IPv6 FIB is now looking stable at 60% opf the
> total FIB size [2]. For me, thats a very
> On 6 Oct 2023, at 6:13 am, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Ratio of FIB to RIB is only part of the equation.
>
> IPv6 is NOT under the disaggregation pressure that IPv4 is under because
> there is no pressure (other than perhaps scarcity mentality from those that
> don’t properly understand IPv6) to
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:11 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> So far, that seems to be largely the case, with more than 50% of ASNs
> represented in the DFZ in IPv6, we see
> roughly 191884 unique destinations in IPv6 and 942750 unique destinations in
> IPv4 (admittedly an instantaneous
>
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 9:42 AM Javier Gutierrez
wrote:
> the loopback of the core network devices is being set from RFC1918
> while on the global routing table. I'm sure this is not a major issue but
> I have mostly seen that ISPs use global IPs for loopbacks on devices
> that would and hold
> I have recently encountered some operational differences at my new
> organization that are not what I have been exposed to before, where
> the loopback of the core network devices is being set from RFC1918
> while on the global routing table. I'm sure this is not a major issue
> but I have
I carry public Internet routing in a vrf, and my loopback and internal IGP
interfaces are in the master/default vrf
Aaron
> On Oct 5, 2023, at 12:24 PM, Javier Gutierrez
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> I have recently encountered some operational differences at my new
> organization that are not
Ratio of FIB to RIB is only part of the equation.
IPv6 is NOT under the disaggregation pressure that IPv4 is under because there
is no pressure (other than perhaps scarcity mentality from those that don’t
properly understand IPv6) to dense-pack IPv6 assignments or undersize IPv6
allocations.
I think it needs to be slightly more nuanced than that…
Because IPv4 is driven to dense-packing and tight allocations, I think
disaggregation of IPv4 will only increase over time.
The hope is that by issuing larger than needed blocks of IPv6, less
disaggregation becomes necessary over time.
I'm on my last full day at StackPath, and a couple of autoresponders are
making my work email even less usable than usual. It would seem G-Core
Labs S.A. (ASN 199524) sent a peering request cc'd to every address they
could find relevant to @INEX LAN1 Dublin, and the various autoresponders
* gutierr...@westmancom.com (Javier Gutierrez) [Thu 05 Oct 2023, 19:25 CEST]:
I have recently encountered some operational differences at my new
organization that are not what I have been exposed to before, where
the loopback of the core network devices is being set from RFC1918
while on the
Hi,
I have recently encountered some operational differences at my new organization
that are not what I have been exposed to before, where the loopback of the core
network devices is being set from RFC1918 while on the global routing table.
I'm sure this is not a major issue but I have mostly
On 10/4/23 6:15 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
If this is true, and I will take your word for it, that is outrageous.
Why is this outrageous?
My wife is a teacher who works with special needs kids, and her phone
went of twice (the second time 15 minutes after the first). This was
very disruptive
* Introducing N89 Keynote Speakers! *
* Don't Miss Out — Sync Your Calendars Now *
* Monday Keynote:* The Expanding Landscape of Internet Governance: Why
Network
Operators Need a Global View w/ President and CEO of ARIN, John Curran.
* Tuesday Keynote:* Fireside Chat with COO
* Introducing N89 Keynote Speakers! *
* Don't Miss Out — Sync Your Calendars Now *
* Monday Keynote:* The Expanding Landscape of Internet Governance: Why
Network
Operators Need a Global View w/ President and CEO of ARIN, John Curran.
* Tuesday Keynote:* Fireside Chat with COO
On 10/4/23 12:14, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
I was kinda surprised that none of my NOAA weather radios went off. I
sorta assumed they'd be tied into the whole "national" alert setup.
That surprises me.
Did the newer alert not get bridged into the same system that NOAA
radios use?
Is
On 10/5/23 08:32, Geoff Huston wrote:
Not really.
The stability of number in IPv4 as compared to the monotonic rise in IPv6 is
what I find to be curious.
I think the fact that RIR's allocate very large IPv6 address space to
their members may well be what is driving this.
Historically,
On 10/5/23 08:24, Geoff Huston wrote:
The IPv6 FIB is under the same pressure from more specifics. Its taken
20 years to get there, but the IPv6 FIB is now looking stable at 60%
opf the total FIB size [2]. For me, thats a very surprising outcome in
an essentially unmanaged system.
Were
On 10/5/23 07:49, Crist Clark wrote:
But if the assumption is that networks will always eventually totally
deaggregate to the maximum, we're screwed. Routing IPv4 /32s would be
nothing. The current practice of accepting /48s could swell to about
2^(48 - 3) = 2^45 = 35184372088832.
What
21 matches
Mail list logo
