-Original Message-
From: Todd Underwood [mailto:toddun...@gmail.com]
firstly: cgn puts reachability in the hands of a single organization.
with the PAP System you have a set of distributed choices about
reachability: different people can assess their different tolerance
to
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:39 PM
To: Lee Howard
Cc: Todd Underwood; Christopher Morrow; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late
Registered but unrouted would include space
I think it's
more reasonable to describe solutions for them than to rule their
problem out of order.
In that, you are surely correct. But frankly, having read 4.3 I have a
hard time taking it seriously as an early-stage IPv6 transition
mechanism. It reads to me like pie in the sky.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:38 PM
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
Home wifi router vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work,
so
Your subpoena is overly broad. Go back and specify port number and
timestamp. And read draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02, section
10.
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Lee
-Original Message-
From: Positively Optimistic [mailto:positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:13 PM
To: Kevin Loch
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last
Since there's a thread here, I'll mention rDNS for residential users.
I'm not sure there's consensus about whether forward and reverse ought
to match (how strong a should is that?). I know you can't populate
every potential record in a reverse zone, as in IPv4. You can generate
records on the
example, considering that arin is managing a public resource for the
community, why are bot meetings not streamed a la cspan?
Having watched Congress on CSPAN, and heard reports about open
ICANN Board meetings, it looks to me like making deliberative
meetings public means nothing substantive
-Original Message-
From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org]
The definition of what comes under the public policy mailing list
umbrella has always been
a bit confusing to me. Too bad something like the APNIC SIGs and RIPE
Working Groups
don't really exist in the ARIN
On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best
Current Operational
Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and document
BCOPs.
While I think BCOPs (and BCOP BoFs) are a great idea, I guess the question
the devices in our customers' homes support IPv6.
Lee Howard
People won't be able to access our site
sure helps but being unable to put a date on it still reduces incentive
(especially when Management get involved, and especially if there is a
financial outlay involving firewalls etc.).
Geoff generously provided a probabilistic sense for RIR runout:
-Original Message-
From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
The most important thing to ensure usage is recognized is that the
entire address space is announced plus routed,
I don't speak on behalf of a community, but in the past there have
been people reminding the ARIN
The end-to-end model is about If my packet is permitted by policy and
delivered to the
remote host, I expect it to arrive as sent, without unexpected
modifications.
Well, it's about communications integrity being the responsibility of the
endpoint. It
is therefore expected that the network not
-Original Message-
From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bo...@adacore.com]
Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
$150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
HE was quite
From: Geert Bosch [mailto:bo...@adacore.com]
Basically, it should not have to cost anything extra to set up
new users for IPv6. The same hardware that handles IPv4 today
can be programmed to do IPv6.
That is not the case for a significant number of home gateways
and other consumer
The better question, for an isp, is what kind of ipv4 secondary market
budget do you have?
How hot is your cgn running? Like ALGs much ? Security and attribute much
?
These are important, yes.
Again , users dont care or know about v4 or v6. This is purely a network
operator and app
From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you don't think that the need to sustain the growth in the number of
devices attached to
the network (never mind the number of things causing that rate to
accelerate[1]) makes IPv6
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
That won't help. Think about it this way. A session state log entry is
roughly 512 bytes.
[math redacted]
you're still looking at roughly 85 Petabytes of
storage required to meet CALEA standards.
I've done my share of
RE: PTRs for IPv6, see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-05
I've had many excellent suggestions for updates to it, which I intend to
treat in the next couple of weeks. I don¹t cover PTRs for servers,
because I don't see a scalability problem.
However, I don't think I understand
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how the Internet run, hope
somebody smart can figure how we can avoid going there, because there
is frustrating and unfun.
On 1/17/13 6:21 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 1/17/13 9:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, . oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
The people on this list have a influence in how
On 1/18/13 9:03 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.com wrote:
IPv6 is obviously the solution, but I think CGN poses more
technological and legal problems for the carriers as opposed to their
clients or the
On 1/18/13 12:48 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
You are welcome to deploy it if you choose to.
Part of the reason I'm arguing against it is that if everyone deploys
it,
then everyone has to deploy it. If it is seen as an alternative to IPv6
by some, then others
On 1/18/13 1:03 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
If an ISP is so close to running out of addresses that they need CGN,
let's say they have 1 year of addresses remaining. Given how many ports
apps use, recommendations are running to 10:1 user:address (but I could
On 4/23/13 7:44 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote:
On 24/04/2013, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Latham lath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Valdis Kletnieks
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
I didn't see any mention of this Tony Hain paper:
On 4/24/13 10:18 AM, Andrew Latham lath...@gmail.com wrote:
* Tore
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
* Andrew Latham
I have sadly witnessed a growing number of businesses with /24s
moving to colocation/aws networks and not giving up their unused
network
On 4/24/13 2:45 PM, ML m...@kenweb.org wrote:
On 4/23/2013 5:41 PM, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
I didn't see any mention of this Tony Hain paper:
http://tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ARIN-runout-projection.pdf
tl;dr: ARIN predicted to run out of IP space to allocate in August this
year.
Are you ready?
to encourage people to push on the content providers to deploy
IPv6
to avoid the need for eyeball networks to pony up all these bizarre hacks.
Lee Howard has some rather interesting research showing that for eyeball
networks, the most cost effective thing up to about (IIRC) $15/address is
to
simply
On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
Le 24/04/2013 07:46, Tore Anderson a écrit :
Trying to reclaim and redistribute unused space would be a tremendous
waste of effort.
It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small
blocks to newcomers, merely to
If this is the case one could argue that ARIN should be reserving this
worthless address space to be used when they receive similar requests
in the future. There's no reason personX should get fresh, clean address
space when they make additional requests.
That implies some process
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:do...@mail-abuse.org]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:41 PM
To: joel jaeggli
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by registered use
On 9/13/09 12:49 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Frank Bulk
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:04 PM
To: Peter Beckman
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted
clients
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Peter Beckman
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:58 PM
To: Brian Johnson
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
/60 - the smallest amount you should allocate to a downstream customer
with more than one
-Original Message-
From: robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov [mailto:robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ISP customer assignments
Organizations will be provided /48s or smaller, but given the current
issues with routing /48's
Nobody promised you a free lunch. In any case, the investment required
to
turn up IPv6 support is a lot less than the cost of carrier grade NAT.
And
the running costs of IPv6 are also lower,
Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data
showing how CGN
is more
-Original Message-
From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:g...@rellim.com]
From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers
The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board
of Trustees may choose to raise the fee.
Right. That's for legacy space. The Board was
-Original Message-
From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out
the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of
encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual
clauses as
On 10/10/13 1:09 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On October 9, 2013 at 20:18 c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) wrote:
Once upon a time, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com said:
It's very useful for blocking spammers and other miscreants -- no
reason at all to accept SMTP connections
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-dnsop-pd-reverse-00
It would be great to have this conversation in the IETF Homenet WG, as
well as DNSops.
This would solve the gaps I identified. Not sure why I, as an ISP, would
spend money on this.
Lee
On 11/18/13 3:06 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
It's looking more and more like NAT64 will be in our future. One of the
valid concerns for NAT64 - much like NAT44 - is being able to determine
the identity of a given user through the NAT at a given point in time.
Bulk
Leaving out stuff . . .
On 11/19/13 6:53 PM, Ian Smith i.sm...@f5.com wrote:
There is obviously a long tail of ip4 destinations, but nearly all of 500
of the Alexa global 500 have ip6 listeners,
Do you have a data source for that? I see no indication of IPv6 listeners
on 85% of the top sites.
On 11/20/13 4:30 PM, Gary E. Miller g...@rellim.com wrote:
Yo Lee!
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:14:47 -0500
Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
There is obviously a long tail of ip4 destinations, but nearly all
of 500 of the Alexa global 500 have ip6 listeners,
Do you have a data source
On 12/18/13 8:03 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:12:28 -0800, cb.list6 said:
I am strongly considering having my upstreams to simply rate limit ipv4
UDP. It is the simplest solution that is proactive.
What
On 12/20/13 7:36 AM, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com wrote:
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
I'm almost afraid to ask about the phrase add-default-route=yes in the
dhcp-client configuration. That seems wrong on the face of it since you
should be getting your routing information
On 12/20/13 8:07 AM, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com wrote:
Parity isn't enough information; what features are missing? RA is
part
of IPv6, but you don't have to use SLAAC.
I'd say it's the DHC people who need to hear it, not the IPv6 people,
but
YMMV.
I have a question. Why does DHCP
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
Date: Saturday, December 21, 2013 10:55 PM
To: Lee Howard l...@asgard.org
Cc: Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com,
m...@kenweb.org m...@kenweb.org, nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
So there's an interesting question. You
On 12/30/13 11:19 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
Why?
You say, The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default
gateway
in DHCPv6. So the IETF WG must change for you to deploy IPv6. Why?
Why must the people
On 12/30/13 1:04 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uchicago.edu wrote:
On Dec 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
default route information via DHCPv6. That's what I'm still waiting
for.
Why?
You say, The protocol suite doesn't meet my needs; I need default
gateway
in DHCPv6
On 12/30/13 2:20 PM, Ryan Harden harde...@uchicago.edu wrote:
On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
'Rewrite all of your tools and change your long standing business
practices¹ is a very large barrier to entry to IPv6. If adding gateway
as
an optional field
I'm not really an advocate for or against DHCP or RAs. I really just want
to understand what feature is missing.
From: Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Ryan Harden harde...@uchicago.edu
Cc: Lee Howard l...@asgard.org, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com
On 1/8/14 9:34 AM, Brian Henson marin...@gmail.com wrote:
The only major ISP that I seen so far that has rolled out is Comcast. Been
probing the TW Cable people for months to see what their plans are for
IPv6
in Ohio and all I have gotten is a million different stories.
TWC Ohio (residential
On 1/29/14 5:01 PM, Leslie Nobile lesl...@arin.net wrote:
ARIN would like to share two items of information that may be of interest
to the community.
First, ARIN has recently begun to issue address space from its last
contiguous /8, 104.0.0.0 /8. The minimum allocation size for this /8
will
On 3/24/14 1:37 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
I say this with the utmost respect, but you must understand the
principle of defense in depth in order to make competent security
decisions for your organization.
On 3/24/14 2:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 3/24/14 1:37 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
That would be one of those details on which smart people disagree.
In this case, I think you're wrong. Modern NAT
On 3/24/14 10:17 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
I can easily answer that one as a holder of v4 space at a commercial
entity. The end user does not feel any compelling reason to move to ipv6
if they have enough v4 space.
I can't give my employer a solid business case of why
of ... didn't even bother to start IPv6
peering on it.
How would there be traffic if you have no peering?
An there you have it, how much is someone willing to pay for space in the
Internet casino. Well, it's much more than free and probably close to the
dollar level in the presentation by Lee Howard
It is late and I am just rambling, but even with DHCP(4and6) changing IP
networks is not a trivial thing. Not hard, but it will require a lot more
planning than what many do today of simply changing the WAN IP address
and some records in the DNS (if needed)
We tried:
On 3/27/14 6:42 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
nanog is a separable game. it is currently very confused between form
and substance, making committees for everything. like the bcop thing.
two organizations, nanog and isoc, forming organizational structures to
create a document store. the
On 4/17/14 8:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
While you're at it, the document can explain to admins who have been
burned, often more than once, by the pain of re-numbering internal
services at static addresses how IPv6 without NAT will magically solve
this problem.
On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Also, I note your draft is entitled Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise
Firewalls. Frankly, no enterprise firewall will be taken seriously
without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial
statement in the IPv6 world but
On 4/17/14 4:45 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a fair argument to be made which says that kind of NAT is
unhealthy. If its proponents are correct, they'll win that argument
later on with NAT-incompatible technology that enterprises want. After
all, enterprise
On 4/18/14 4:33 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
If William and I fight that fight, lose it, and come back and tell you
They won't go because insufficient NAT you need to listen. I've fought
this in a dozen places and lost 8 of them, not because I don't know v6,
but
because
On 4/18/14 10:16 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:04:35PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
As to address the other argument in this threat on NAT / private
addressing, PCI requirement 1.3.8 pretty much requires RFC1918
addressing
of the computers in scope... has
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, April 18, 2014 7:11 PM
To: Lee Howard l...@asgard.org
Cc: Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net,
draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-firewall-r...@tools.ietf.org
draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-firewall-r...@tools.ietf.org, nanog@nanog.org
nanog@nanog.org
On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up significantly if
On 5/22/14 9:41 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
My job isn't to increase v6. It's to make sure we can serve traffic over
protocols we are asked to. We are dual stacked which means our customers
are.
I'm not going to tell you what your job is.
I'm curious, though, whether your
We've corresponded offline.
I documented the difficulties in providing reverse DNS for IPv6
residential users in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-06
It's a long-expired draft, which never found sufficient support from a WG
or AD. I've been meaning to rewrap it as a BCOP, but
On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Here's what the general public is hearing:
But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
~$ dig arstechnica.com +short
~$
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-ru
to turn up services.
Lee
Andrew Fried
andrew.fr...@gmail.com
On 6/17/14, 5:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Here's what the general public is hearing:
But only while they still
On 6/18/14 2:44 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I find the /50 particularly odd as it's not a nibble boundary and very
close to /48. It's almost certain this is an operator who fails to
grasp
that they could have easily gotten a larger allocation from their RIR
if
they just asked
On 6/18/14 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't
support
IPv6. Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6.
Several do now. What are $CABLECO, $CE_STORES, etc. doing to make sure
consumers choose these or
On 6/17/14 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
These sites used to be dual-stacked:
www.cablelabs.com (over 180 days ago via ipv6.cablelabs.com)
www.att.net (over 44 days ago)
www.charter.com (over 151 days)
www.globalcrossing.com (over 802 days)
www.timewarnercable.com (over 593
I support a recommendation to consumer retailers to start requiring IPv6
support in the stuff that they sell, but unfortunately I don¹t have very
good data on how large of a request that actually is.
In my experience, retailers will sell whatever flies off the shelves
without
regard to
On 6/18/14 7:26 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 19:02 -0400, George, Wes wrote:
Similarly, Belkin¹s home routers appear to support IPv6, but that
doesn¹t
appear in the specs or features list on their site when I just checked
it.
There's also an issue of what
From: Brian Hartsfield b...@tronstar.com
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Lee Howard l...@asgard.org
Cc: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com, Wesley George
wesley.geo...@twcable.com, nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion
For consumers I think I
On 6/19/14 2:50 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edward Arthurs
earth...@legacyinmate.com wrote:
You are correct, but this is the tip of the iceberg as other
configurations will need to come into play as pointed out by several
people on
On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
How does IPv6 to end users make IPv4 unnecessary for growth, if
enterprises and content providers haven't deployed IPv6?
content folk are mostly getting
On 6/19/14 5:02 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:35:55 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net
wrote:
Any suggestions on how ARIN should reach those CIO's in the meantime?
Refuse additional IPv4
NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org a écrit sur 2014-06-18 20:16:01 :
De : Sadiq Saif li...@sadiqs.com
A : nanog@nanog.org,
Date : 2014-06-19 12:43
Objet : Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)
Envoyé par : NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org
On 6/18/2014 14:25, Lee Howard wrote
On 6/19/14 11:13 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 6/19/14 4:30 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
So, I was focusing on the end-user (Consumer) set because given enough
migration
On 7/29/14 1:00 PM, Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
On 7/29/2014 12:42 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that
practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my
communications had been intercepted due to the bad
Thanks for sharing your experience; it's very unusual to get the
perspective of an operator running CGN (on a broadband ISP; wireless has
always had it).
On 7/29/14 5:28 PM, Tony Wicks t...@wicks.co.nz wrote:
OK, as someone with experience running CGNAT to fixed broadband customers
in
general,
On 7/30/14 3:45 PM, joshua rayburn jbrayb...@gmail.com wrote:
Starting in 3.10 code you can utilize Bulk Port Allocation to carve out
small consecutive port bundles for end users as to not mess up SIP
functionsand High Speed Logging to log individual customers ports for law
enforcement needs
I am delighted to see this, and I hope other conferences will do likewise.
Lee
On 9/26/14 10:24 AM, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in wrote:
I'm excited to announce that for NANOG 63 in San Antonio that we will
begin
the NANOG College Immersion Program. This program aims to provide the next
generation
On 10/7/14 10:14 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
I am having trouble understanding why a router would need a heartbeat
from
some foreign location. Or even what it would do with one.
One, not
As a co-chair of the IETF v6ops Working Group, I thought I'd share my notes
about yesterday's meeting with you, as actual operators, and ask for more
input.
Deprecating 6to4
Brian Carpenter discussed draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
If you are a monarch or regulator, or just curious, and want to compare
stories of what other countries have done to promote IPv6 (as in my
presentation today, https://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2486) you can
download the working paper at:
this reference in an RFI, to catch vendors who were only
cutting and pasting marketing materials.
-mel beckman
On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
I think the RFC numbering system is a terrible scheme. As Wes
described,
you have a document purporting to describe
I think the RFC numbering system is a terrible scheme. As Wes described,
you have a document purporting to describe something, with no indicator
that parts of it have been rendered obsolete by parts of other documents.
I pity implementors who have to figure it all out.
I also agree with Joel,
On 6/1/15, 1:49 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 6/1/2015 12:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
... Here¹s the thing In order to land IPv6 services without IPv6
support on the VM, you¹re creating an environment where...
Let's hypothetically say that it is much easier for the cloud
Some thoughts. . .
³Native dual-stack² is ³native IPv4 and native IPv6.²
³Dual-stack² might be native, or might by ³native IPv6 plus IPv4 address
sharing.²
Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are
operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need
On 6/23/15, 9:01 AM, NANOG on behalf of Ca By nanog-boun...@nanog.org
on behalf of cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Since you have failed to achieve in the modest task that was your charge
You now get this
https://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1471
Time to watch this again:
On 7/17/15, 6:25 AM, Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com on
behalf of morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
Business Class DOCSIS customers get
On 7/9/15, 11:04 AM, NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of m...@beckman.org wrote:
I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is allowed
for in the future but not configured in the short term. With less than
10,000 ephemeral users, we don't expect
On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the
rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and
refuse to enable efforts that
On 7/16/15, 12:47 PM, NANOG on behalf of Bryan Fields
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
On 7/15/15 9:59 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Price varies significantly by prefix length, and somewhat by region.
Regional variance may not be as much as it used to be.
Does
On 7/13/15, 3:43 PM, NANOG on behalf of Ricky Beam
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:33 -0400, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is
actively engaged in the community, as
On 7/16/15, 4:32 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
Lee Howard wrote:
So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class
E?
That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody
can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how
On 7/14/15, 11:16 PM, NANOG on behalf of Randy Bush
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of ra...@psg.com wrote:
While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic
curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator
for
what is happening.
we're an isp,
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
