Re: IPv4 and Auctions

On 10/27/19 12:47 PM, Michel Py wrote: Michel Py wrote : What I like with Hilco is that it brings transparency to the market. I think that each transfer should list the amount of the transaction between parties. For example, I would like to know for how much 44.192/10 went. The parties

Re: IPv4 and Auctions

Since you mentioned Hilco specifically. . . IPv4.Global is the IPv4 address brokerage operated by Hilco Streambank. We match organizations who have more IPv4 address space than they need with organizations who need more IPv4 address space than they have. This is consistent with ARIN's Number

Re: MAP-E

On 8/9/19 1:32 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: ❦ 8 août 2019 16:18 -04, Lee Howard : NAT64. IPv6-only to users. DNS resolver given in provisioning information is a DNS64 server. When it does a lookup but there's no , it invents one based on the A record (e.g., 2001:db8:64::). The IPv6

Re: MAP-E

On 8/8/19 9:00 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Lee Howard wrote: MAP-T, MAP-E. IPv6-only between CE and Border Relay (BR). CPE is provisioned with an IPv4 address and a range of ports. It does basic NAT44, but only uses the reserved ports. Then it translates to IPv6 (MAP-T) or encapsulates

Re: MAP-E

On 8/2/19 11:39 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: Is there a summary presentation someplace laying out the options that are active in the wild with some deployment stats? I can't think of a public presentation off the top of my head that explains how each major transition technology works, and the pros

Re: MAP-E

On 8/2/19 1:10 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: The cost of sharing IPs in a static way, is that services such as Sony Playstation Network will put those addresses in the black list, so you need to buy more addresses. This hasn’t been the case for 464XLAT/NAT64, which shares the

Re: any interesting/useful resources available to IPv6 only?

On 5/6/19 12:45 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: But the came I am making is to PHBs, not engineers and I am trying to find a path of least resistance. IPv6 is, on average, 20ms faster than IPv4. I don't know why, I just know that the evidence is diverse and compelling that it's true.

Re: Auto-configuring IPv6 transition mechanisms on customer devices

On 1/2/19 7:59 AM, Brandon Martin wrote: On 1/2/19 7:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Yes, we're buying devices from a vendor that uses OpenWrt as base for their operating system. We're using this one currently: https://www.intenogroup.com/products/gateways/eg400/ We remotely manage it

Re: OpenDNS CGNAT Issues

On 09/11/2018 09:31 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote: So don't CGNat?  Buy IPv4 addresses at auction? Buy IPv4 addresses until CGN is cheaper. If a customer has to call, and you have to assign an IPv4 address, you have to recover the cost of that call and address. While ((CostOfCall +

Re: at business ipv6

On 06/21/2018 12:07 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: Randy Bush wrote on 21/06/2018 16:35: Static addresses don't fit into this paradigm because you if you configure your static customers from a single broadcast domain, then they are glued to a particular CMTS and can't be moved from that CMTS

Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)

On 06/17/2018 02:53 PM, Brad wrote: While I agree there are unintended consequences every time advancements are made in relation to the security and stability of the Internet- I disagree we should be rejecting their implementations. Instead, we should innovate further. I look forward to

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

On 06/11/2018 05:16 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By Meanwhile, FB reports that 75% of mobiles in the USA reach them via ipv6 And Akaimai reports 80% of mobiles And they both report ipv6 is faster / better. Let me

Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

resses of Ill Repute. Sales pitch available on demand. Lee Howard Retevia.net On 06/11/2018 12:56 PM, Michael Crapse wrote: Never do i suggest to not have ipv6! Simply that no matter what, You still have to traverse to ipv4 when you exit your ipv6 network onto ipv4 only services. What IPv4 add

Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)

On 05/28/2018 10:23 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Has anyone outside of tech media, Silicon Valley or academia (all places wildly out of touch with the real world) put much thought into the impacts of encryption everywhere? See "Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators."

Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?

ARIN's fee for a /24 is $250 https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html That's about 1/15th of the price of a /24 on the market. Of course, they don't have any /24s. Unless, of course, you're deploying IPv6 and just need the /24 for your NAT64 box, DS-Lite AFTR, or MAP-T BR.

Re: cgnat - how do you handle customer issues

On 02/27/2018 12:52 PM, Aaron Gould wrote: Thanks For #2 – what if the ports allocated aren’t enough for the amount of inet traffic the customer site uses ? …is the customer denied service based on insufficient port range ? …or are they assigned another block within that some ip’s

Re: cgnat - how do you handle customer issues

On 02/27/2018 11:30 AM, Aaron Gould wrote: Couple questions please. When you put thousands of customers behind a cgnat boundary, how do you all handle customer complaints about the following. 1 - for external connectivity to the customers premise devices, not being able to access web

IPv6 operations discussions

The IETF v6ops working group is chartered to improve the operation of IPv6. We have several active documents right now that would benefit from broader operator feedback. For instance, there is current active discussion on: Requirements for IPv6 Routers

Re: Leasing /22

From: Michael Crapse <mich...@wi-fiber.io> Date: Monday, January 22, 2018 at 5:27 PM To: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> Cc: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Leasing /22 > Customers on ps4s and xboxes will hate you. They w

Re: Leasing /22

IPv6 still solves your problem if you add any of NAT64, DS-Lite, 464xlat, MAP-T, MAP-E. Yes, you’re NATing, but only the traffic to places like Hulu, and it will decrease over time. And while you need addresses for the outside of the translator, you don’t need as many (or to get more as

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

From: <christopher.mor...@gmail.com> on behalf of Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM To: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> Cc: Mike <mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject:

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On 12/20/17, 1:23 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote: >On 12/17/2017 08:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >> some fun examples of the size of ipv6: >> >> https://samsclass.info/ipv6/exhaustion-2016.htm >> >>

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 12/19/17, 8:50 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong" wrote: > >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason >> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" >>

Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

On 12/19/17, 11:52 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews" wrote: > >> On 20 Dec 2017, at 2:39 am, Livingood, Jason >> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" >>

Re: F Y I

On 10/17/17, 5:33 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Christopher Morrow" wrote: >you know, the Sci-Hub folk could fix this themselves... with some >authentication requirements... and probably by just unplugging from the >intertubes?

Re: 4 or smaller digit ASNs

> On Oct 12, 2017, at 1:01 AM, James Breeden wrote: > > Hello NANOG... > > I have a client interested in picking up a new AS number but they really want > it to be 3 or 4 digits in length. > > Is there a process to request this from ARIN, or doss anyone know of unused

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

On 9/23/17, 1:51 AM, "nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" wrote: >On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:47:32 +1000, Mark Andrews said: >> You know CPE devices are routers. They can tell you what routes >> DHCP has given

Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp

On 9/23/17, 7:14 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Fredrik Sallinen" wrote: >Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile >networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right? Should work fine in landline

Re: DHCPv6-PD -> Lack of route injection in RFC

On 9/22/17, 3:12 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Steve Teusch" wrote: >I am running into venders that do not support injection of a delegated >route when operating as a DHCPv6 relay (or server for that matter). >Brocade

Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp

On 9/13/17, 8:08 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Fredrik Sallinen" wrote: >Hello, > >Recently we have decided to start IPv6 migration in our network. We >have ~1K BNGs and connecting our customers to network using PPPoE. >I'd be

Re: IPv6 Loopback/Point-to-Point address allocation

On 9/9/17, 12:06 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Kody Vicknair" wrote: >All, > >I’ve been doing some reading in preparation of IPv6 deployment and >figuring out how we will break up our /32. I think I’m on the right track >in thinking

Re: ISP billing - data collection, correlation, and billing

On 7/14/17, 2:47 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Luke Guillory" wrote: >On the HFC / CMTS side of things we have IPDR which I believe has some >open source collectors out there. I'm not sure that IPDR is used much >outside of the HFC

Re: Some advice on IPv6 planning and ARIN request, please

On 7/7/17, 1:07 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Oliver O'Boyle" wrote: > We're currently in the planning stage and can make >whatever changes we need to. I always say to just expect you’ll change your address plan three times. Some people

Re: IPv6 traffic percentages?

On 6/22/17, 3:00 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Radu-Adrian Feurdean" wrote: >On Thu, Jun 22, 2017, at 08:18, Mukom Akong T. wrote: >> >> On 18 June 2017 at 17:36, Radu-Adrian Feurdean > adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:>>

Re: Nat

On 1/7/16, 7:39 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Doug Barton" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of do...@dougbarton.us> wrote: >On 12/18/2015 01:20 PM, Lee Howard wrote: >> >> >> On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" >

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

On 12/22/15, 1:13 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong" wrote: >Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you¹re refusing to support >IPv6 for those of us >that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too. > >Owen Owen, you¹re out

Re: IPv4 subnets for lease?

Leasing is ill-advised; the addresses will be unsellable once the spammers are through with them. Really, there¹s no other reason to lease. If you want to buy or sell addresses in the ARIN region, some of the facilitators at https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html

Re: Nat

On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Matthew Petach" wrote: >On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only. >> >> this is the oppress the workers

Re: Nat

On 12/17/15, 2:27 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Chuck Church" wrote: >-Original Message- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach >Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM >Cc: North American

Re: Nat

On 12/16/15, 8:53 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Berry Mobley" wrote: >At 08:22 PM 12/16/2015, Randy Bush wrote: >> > We need to put some pain onto everyone that is IPv4 only. >> >>this is the oppress the workers so they will revolt theory.

Re: Nat

On 12/16/15, 7:14 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" wrote: >Mark, > >Why? Why do WE "need" to force people to bend to our will? The market >will get us all there eventually. Some companies will run out of IPv4 addresses before others.

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/12/15, 1:49 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote: > >Thats not even the half of it. > >My personal heroics in solving the connectivity problem here, is that we >became a CLEC in order to take the bull on by the short and

Re: /27 the new /24

On 10/8/15, 6:45 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mike" wrote: > > >On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >> Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of >> things to implement, but the barriers are

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

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

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

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,

Re: 'gray' market IPv4

Price varies significantly by prefix length, and somewhat by region. Regional variance may not be as much as it used to be. Lee On 7/14/15, 6:15 PM, NANOG on behalf of Pavel Odintsov nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of pavel.odint...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, folks! I have finished multiple

Re: Remember Internet-In-A-Box?

I google¹d ³IPv6 for Dummies² and found this: https://www.wesecure.nl/upload/documents/tinymce/IPv6.pdf It¹s licensed from the For Dummies series, written and published by Infoblox. more below. . . On 7/14/15, 8:02 PM, NANOG on behalf of Mike nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of

Re: Remember Internet-In-A-Box?

On 7/15/15, 11:57 AM, NANOG on behalf of Matthew Kaufman nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of matt...@matthew.at wrote: Go to any business with hardware that is 3-5 years old in its IT infrastructure and devices ranging from PCs running XP to the random consumer gear people bring in (cameras,

Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6

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

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

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

Re: Thanks aws / gcc / azure

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:

Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture

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 thingŠ 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

Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

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

Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested

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,

Public Policy Approaches to IPv4-IPv6 Transition

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:

IPv6 Operations

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

Re: Belkin Router issues this morning?

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

Re: NANOG College Immersion Program

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

Re: Carrier Grade NAT

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

Re: Carrier Grade NAT

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

Re: Carrier Grade NAT

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,

Re: Canada and IPv6 (was: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion)

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Credit to Digital Ocean for ipv6 offering

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

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

Re: Time Warner IPv6 Reverse DNS?

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

Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google)

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

Re: IPv6 at 50% for VZW (Re: NAT IP and Google)

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

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

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

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

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

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

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.

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

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

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

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

Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

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

Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)

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

Re: misunderstanding scale

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

Re: IPv6 Security [Was: Re: misunderstanding scale]

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

Re: misunderstanding scale (was: Ipv4 end, its fake.)

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

Re: misunderstanding scale

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:

Re: misunderstanding scale

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.

Re: Updated ARIN allocation information

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

Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?

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

Re: turning on comcast v6

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

Re: turning on comcast v6

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

Re: turning on comcast v6

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

Re: turning on comcast v6

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

Re: turning on comcast v6

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

  1   2   >