Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

On 3/29/21 11:36 AM, Matt Erculiani wrote: We might be talking a lot more about PRKI as it becomes compulsory, maybe 400G transit links will start being standard across the industry. If we're lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) maybe a whole new routing protocol will be

Re: OT: Re: Facebook and other walled gardens

On 3/22/21 11:41 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:23 AM Andy Ringsmuth wrote: No. Use a communication method that is available globally, not proprietary and doesn’t require me to sell my soul to the devil simply to participate. Hi Andy, I refused to get a Facebook

Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.

On 3/23/21 2:55 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 3/23/21 1:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: The big problem with mailing lists is that they screw up security by changing the subject/body and breaking DKIM signatures. What you are describing is a capability, configuration, execution issue

Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.

On 3/24/21 5:38 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 3/23/21 8:04 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: This has the unfortunate downside of teaching people not to pay attention to the From: domain. For mailing lists maybe that's an OK tradeoff, but it definitely not a good thing overall. I noticed that the IETF

Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.

On 3/23/21 1:44 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG wrote: On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: If it's the latter, does that mean that you have to constantly keep changing /where/ messages are sent to in order to keep up with the latest and greatest or at least most popular (in

Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.

On 3/23/21 4:34 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 3/23/21 4:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: But they still have the originating domain's From: address. My opinion is that messages from the mailing list should not have the originating domain in the From: address.  The message from

Re: OT: Re: Facebook and other walled gardens

On 3/22/21 9:02 AM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 3/22/21 8:00 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: most discussion in the WISP space has moved to Facebook So ... a walled garden. I have a severe problem with professional communities /requiring/ me to have a Facebook, et al., account to participate

Re: Texas ERCOT power shortages (again) April 13

On 4/14/21 7:00 AM, Brian Johnson wrote: There is no profit motive for a non-profit company. It’s completely relevant to your response. This is patently absurd. It's an industry group/organization. It's raison d'etre is to serve its industry which definitely has a profit motive. That and

Re: Malicious SS7 activity and why SMS should never by used for 2FA

I wonder how much of this is moot because the amount of actual SS7 is low and getting lower every day. Aren't most "SMS" messages these days just SIP MESSAGE transactions, or maybe they use XMPP? As I understand a lot of the cell carriers are using SIPoLTE directly to your phone. Mike On

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On 2/16/21 3:05 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: Almost exactly 4 years ago we were out up here in Michigan for over 120 hours after a wind storm took out power to 1 million homes. Large scale restoration takes time. When the load and supply are imbalanced it can make things worse as well. I'm

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On 2/16/21 8:50 AM, John Von Essen wrote: I just assumed most people in Texas have heat pumps- AC in the summer and minimal heating in the winter when needed. When the entire state gets a deep freeze, everybody is running those heat pumps non-stop, and the generation capacity simply wasn’t

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On 2/16/21 3:19 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Feb 16, 2021, at 6:28 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: We use propane. It's less dense energy-wise than gasoline, but it's really easy to switch over. Why not use both? Plenty of generators that are dual fuel out there. Last year I

dumb question: are any of the RIR's out of IPv4 addresses?

Basically are there places that you can't get allocations? If so, what is happening? Mike

Re: dumb question: are any of the RIR's out of IPv4 addresses?

e from Afrinic, this is all being done on the gray market? Wouldn't you expect that price to follow something like an exponential curve as available addresses become more and more scarce and unavailable for essentially any price? Mike Sent from my iPad On Feb 16, 2021, at 3:07 PM, Michael Thomas

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On 2/17/21 7:15 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: The price of electricity is a major component of the decision where data centers operators choose to build large data centers. Total electric price to end consumer (residential).  Although industrial electric prices are usually lower, its easier to

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

have superior power generator. Can you share what are you using? Sorry I noticed my error right after I hit send. I meant a 5 gallon tank, not 1. Inverter generators are definitely worth the extra cost though. Mike -- Original message -- From: Michael Thomas To: nanog

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On 2/17/21 2:37 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: I actually tend to believe that buried HVDC is the future of long-distance power transmission. We might be able to pull off that this transitions from a niche technology to the mainstream, like we did with photovoltaics (at the cost of 200 G€).

Re: Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

On 2/17/21 9:40 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote: It might not be an easy fix in the moment, but in the long run, buy a generator and install a propane tank. When power prices spike to insane levels like this, just flip your transfer switch over and run off propane. When utility power

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote: IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol. So, in your mind, IPv4 was "obsolete" in 1996 -- almost three years before IPv6 was even specified?  Fascinating. I could be in no way mistaken for an IPv4/NAT apologist, but

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/27/21 2:58 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Aug 27, 2021, at 8:36 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: Hi, If, like me, you feel like chipping in a little bit of money to help AfriNIC make payroll despite Heng having gotten their bank accounts frozen, some of the African ISP

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

On 8/31/21 5:13 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 8/31/21 16:32, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: Fun part being that it is hard to get a Dumb TV... though that is primarily simply because of all the tracking non-sense in them that makes them 'cheaper'... (still wonder how well that tracking stuff

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

On 8/25/21 11:11 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: The question that Ethan raised makes sense, however. If power to several blocks is out and I connect my little 2KW Honda to my house wiring without a transfer switch, because transformers work in both directions my generator will see the load of the

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ On Aug 31, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Michael Thomas <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” mon

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

On 9/1/21 11:49 AM, Matthew Huff wrote: IPv6 tunnels work great for network geeks, but rather poorly for home users with streaming, gaming etc...It's not necessarily the performance, it's either the geolocation, latency, or the very issue that started this thread - VPN banning. Remember,

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

On 9/1/21 3:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:28 PM > wrote: Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several people who'd tried would say don't do it. And everytime I see an email thread about the difference or not

Re: Happy 40th anniversary RFC 791!

On 9/1/21 11:42 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: For anyone unaware, Jon Postel, a good friend and mentor to many of us at the dawn of the Internet, was the primary editor of this landmark document. Those were the days we thought ARPAnet would never be allowed to go commercial. Thanks to Jon’s

Re: Happy 40th anniversary RFC 791!

On 9/1/21 12:26 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: I still have a slew on Lantronix terminal servers :) A few years back I was shocked to hear that the original OS that I wrote -- called whimsically Punix for Puny Unix -- which was used by Lantronix was still being sold. I mean, that's over 30 years

if not v6, what?

On 9/4/21 10:43 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: I view IPv6 as the biggest mistake of my career and feel responsible for this horrible outcome and I do apologise to Internet users for it. This dual-stack is the worst possible outcome, and we've been here over two decades, increasing cost and reducing

Happy 40th anniversary RFC 791!

aka IPv4. The RFC doesn't have the exact date it was published, but the internet as we know it was being born. What a journey it's been. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc791 Mike

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

On 9/1/21 10:59 AM, Nimrod Levy wrote: All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but there are providers still not on board. They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are... This is about inside your premise before any NAT's enter the picture. What would be

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

On 9/1/21 11:25 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote: Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like that. That it was usable but they were unhappy

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/12/21 1:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going away in 10, 15, 20 years whichever it is, then they'd of course have to start moving too, because no upstream. And they would fight it tooth and nail, just like they do now you speak as if it was religion or

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/12/21 4:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I doubt many vendors were chomping at the bit to support CGNAT definitely. they hate to sell big expensive boxes. Back in the early 2000's the first rumblings of what would eventually turn into CGN started popping up at Cablelabs. I went to the EVP of

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/14/21 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: 8+8 came *MUCH* later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime time.  The reason we know that is that work was the basi

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/14/21 2:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Just because I didn't attend IETF meetings doesn't mean that I didn't read drafts, etc. Lurkers are a thing and lurkers are allowed opinions too. i missed the rfc where the chair of the v6 wg said the ops did not understand the h ratio because we did not

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/14/21 2:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time but your opinion was? Just because I didn't attend IETF meetings doesn't mean that I didn't read drafts, etc. Lurkers are a thing and lurkers are allowed opinions too. Mike

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/14/21 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before exposing enough information to the community to get the negative feedback their solution so richly deserves. At that point, they have rather strong incentives to push for the IETF adopting

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/15/21 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Sep 15, 2021, at 16:20 , Michael Thomas <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: On 9/14/21 12:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: There were four proposals for the IPng: * NIMROD, PIP, SIP, and TUBA SIP was the one that was chosen, supported by

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/14/21 12:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: There were four proposals for the IPng: * NIMROD, PIP, SIP, and TUBA SIP was the one that was chosen, supported by endpoint manufacturers such as Sun and SGI, and it was the MOST compatible.  Operators and router manufacturers at the time pushed

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: 8+8 came *MUCH* later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime time.  The reason we know that is that work was the basis of LISP and ILNP.  Yes, standing on the shoulders of giants.  And there certainly were poor design decisions in IPv6, bundling

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/13/21 11:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote: < rant > ipv6 was designed at a time where the internet futurists/idealists had disdain for operators and vendors, and thought we were evil money grabbers who had to be brought under control. the specs as originally RFCed by the ietf is very telling.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/13/21 2:52 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:22 PM Randy Bush > wrote: real compatibility with ipv4 was disdained.  the transition plan was dual stack and v4 would go away in a handful of years.  the 93 transition mechanisms were

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

On 8/6/21 8:35 AM, Fred Baker wrote: On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah wrote: Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6? Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that contribute

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/24/21 10:53 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote: Well, I see IPv6 as double failure really. First, IPv6 itself is too different from IPv4. What Internet wanted is IPv4+ (aka IPv4 with bigger address space, likely 64bit). Of course we could not extend IPv4, so having new protocol is fine. It should

Re: Rack rails on network equipment

On 9/25/21 2:08 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 9/25/21 13:55, Baldur Norddahl wrote: My personal itch is how new equipment seems to have even worse boot time than previous generations. I am currently installing juniper acx710 and while they are nice, they also make me wait 15 minutes to boot.

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On 10/11/21 12:49 AM, Matthew Petach wrote: Instead of a 4K stream, drop it to 480 or 240; the eyeball network should be happy at the reduced strain the resulting stream puts on their network. As a consumer paying for my 4k stream, I know who I'm calling when it drops to 480 and it ain't

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

On 10/10/21 12:57 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote: If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses that gamble and

Re: Network visibility

On 10/20/21 8:26 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: Mark, As long as we’re being pedantic, January 1, 1983 is considered the official birthday of the Internet, when TCP/IP first let different kinds of computers on different networks talk to each other. It’s 2021, hence the Internet is /less/ than, not

Re: Network visibility

4G address space to laughs and guffaws from panel. Mike - James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net cell 734-673-5462 On Oct 20, 2021, at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: I think the issuing of rfc 791 was much more important than the flag

Re: Network visibility

t;internetworking" - of which there was a considerable amount of experimental work going on, in parallel with TCP/IP.  And of (small i) "internets" - essentially any Catenet style network-of-networks. Miles Fidelman Mel Beckman wrote: Michael, “Looking into” isn’t “is” :)  -mel On Oct

Re:

Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating. Mike On 10/20/21 2:16 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: *Mel Beckman*mel at beckman.org

Internet history

[changed to a more appropriate subject] On 10/20/21 3:52 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 10/20/21 3:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Just as an interesting aside if you're interested in the history of networking, When Wizards Stayed Up Late is quite elucidating. +10 to Where Wizards Stay Up

Re: Internet history

On 10/21/21 11:52 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 21, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: [changed to a more appropriate subject] On 10/20/21 3:52 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: On 10/20/21 3:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: Just as an interesting aside if you're interested

Re: DOJ files suit to enforce FCC penalty for robocalls

On 10/21/21 10:57 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: The multi-million dollar fines announced with great fanfaire by the Federal Communication Commission are almost never collected. The FCC doesn't have enforcement authority to collect fines. The FCC usually withholds license renewals until penalties

Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?

On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control a network owned and paid for by someone else. Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is

Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?

On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Oct 18, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Hi, On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control a network owned and paid for by someone e

Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?

On 10/18/21 1:51 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be painfully few choices, and too often the response to

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/28/21 1:06 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 3:02 PM Randy Bush > wrote: > Heh, NAT is not that evil after all. Do you expect that all the home > people will get routable public IPs for all they toys inside house? in ipv6 they can. 

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/29/21 1:09 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:22 PM Owen DeLong > wrote: On Sep 29, 2021, at 09:25, Victor Kuarsingh mailto:vic...@jvknet.com>> wrote:  On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:55 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/29/21 12:22 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: On Sep 29, 2021, at 09:25, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:  On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:55 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: Use SLAAC, allocate prefixes from both providers. If you are using multiple routers,

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

On 9/29/21 2:23 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:51 PM Michael Thomas <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: On 9/29/21 1:09 PM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:22 PM Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: On Sep 29,

DNS pulling BGP routes?

So if I understand their post correctly, their DNS servers have the ability to withdraw routes if they determine are sub-optimal (fsvo). I can certainly understand for the DNS servers to not give answers they think are unreachable but there is always the problem that they may be partitioned

Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?

On 10/6/21 2:33 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:43 AM Michael Thomas wrote: So if I understand their post correctly, their DNS servers have the ability to withdraw routes if they determine are sub-optimal (fsvo). The servers' IP addresses are anycasted. When one data

Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?

On 10/6/21 2:58 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, Michael Thomas wrote: On 10/6/21 2:33 PM, William Herrin wrote:  On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:43 AM Michael Thomas wrote:  So if I understand their post correctly, their DNS servers have the  ability to withdraw routes

Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?

On 10/6/21 3:33 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, Michael Thomas wrote:  People have been anycasting DNS server IPs for years (decades?). So, no. But it wasn't just their DNS subnets that were pulled, I thought. I'm obviously really confused. Anycast to a DNS server makes sense

Re: VoIP Provider DDoSes

On 9/21/21 4:09 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: Unlike http based services which can be placed behind cloudflare or similar, harder to protect sip trunking servers. The provider in question makes use of third party hosting services for each of their cities' POPs. It is my understanding that for the

Re: VoIP Provider DDoSes

, Michael Thomas wrote: Which makes SIPoHTTP an inevitability. Mike

Re: update - Re: Facebook post-mortems...

On 10/4/21 6:07 PM, jcur...@istaff.org wrote: On 4 Oct 2021, at 8:58 PM, jcur...@istaff.org wrote: Fairly abstract - Facebook Engineering - https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A10158791436142200%7D=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr

Re: facebook outage

On 10/4/21 2:41 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: man. 4. okt. 2021 23.33 skrev Bill Woodcock >: > On Oct 4, 2021, at 11:21 PM, Bill Woodcock mailto:wo...@pch.net>> wrote: > > > >> On Oct 4, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Bill Woodcock mailto:wo...@pch.net>> wrote:

Re: Facebook post-mortems...

On 10/4/21 5:58 PM, jcur...@istaff.org wrote: Fairly abstract - Facebook Engineering - https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A10158791436142200%7D=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&_rdr Also,

Re: Facebook post-mortems...

On 10/4/21 10:42 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:15 PM Michael Thomas wrote: They have a monkey patch subsystem. Lol. Yes, actually, they do. They use Chef extensively to configure operating systems. Chef is written in Ruby. Ruby has something called Monkey Patches

Re: Facebook post-mortems...

On 10/5/21 12:17 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On 5. Oct 2021, at 07:42, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:15 PM Michael Thomas wrote: They have a monkey patch subsystem. Lol. Yes, actually, they do. They use Chef extensively to configure operating systems. Chef is written

Re: Facebook post-mortems...

Actually for card readers, the offline verification nature of certificates is probably a nice property. But client certs pose all sorts of other problems like their scalability, ease of making changes (roles, etc), and other kinds of considerations that make you want to fetch more information

Better description of what happened

tps://engineering.fb.com/2021/10/05/networking-traffic/outage-details/> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:26 PM Michael Thomas <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote: On 10/5/21 12:17 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 5. Oct 2021, at 07:42, William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wro

Re: massive facebook outage presently

On 10/4/21 11:48 AM, Luke Guillory wrote: I believe the original change was 'automatic' (as in configuration done via a web interface). However, now that connection to the outside world is down, remote access to those tools don't exist anymore, so the emergency procedure is to gain physical

Re: Better description of what happened

On 10/5/21 3:09 PM, Andy Brezinsky wrote: It's a few years old, but Facebook has talked a little bit about their DNS infrastructure before.  Here's a little clip that talks about Cartographer: https://youtu.be/bxhYNfFeVF4?t=2073 From their outage report, it sounds like their authoritative

Re: Powerline Broadband Usecases

On 9/27/21 1:35 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: It may be still interesting in some remote areas if you can bring fiber to the nearest medium to low voltage transformer. The company that designed the chip set (DS2, a Spanish company), was acquired by Marvell

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 11/20/21 11:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 11/20/21 11:01, Michael Thomas wrote: There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 11/20/21 12:37 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote: Was it the politics of ipv6 that this didn't get resolved in the 90's when it was a lot more tractable? No, in the '90s we didn't have nearly the basis for looking ahead. We might still have

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 11/20/21 11:51 AM, William Herrin wrote: If I had to guess, changing 224/4 is probably the biggest lift. The other proposals mainly involve altering configuration, removing some possibly hardcoded filters and in a few cases waiting for silicon to age out of the system. Changing 224/4 means

Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 11/20/21 10:44 AM, Chris Adams wrote: [] There is just as big a block of addresses with class D addresses for broadcast. Is broadcast really even a thing these days? I know tons of work went into it, but it always seemed that brute force and ignorance won out using unicast. Even if it

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/20/21 9:29 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 11/19/21 10:27, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, That depends on your timeline. Do you know many non-technical people still using their Pentium III computers with circa 2001 software versions? Connected to the Internet? There are lots of very old

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 8:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: these measurements would be great if there could be a full research- style paper, with methodology artifacts, and reproducible results. otherwise it disappears in the gossip stream of mailimg lists. Maybe an experimental rfc making it a rfc 1918-like

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 7:38 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Actually, CIDR didn’t require upgrading every end-node, just some of them. That’s what made it doable… Updating only routers, not end-nodes. Another thing that made it doable is that there were a LOT fewer end-nodes and a much smaller vendor

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

On 11/19/21 10:15 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:04 AM Michael Thomas wrote: I don't think you can overstate how ASIC's made changing anything pretty much impossible. It's why all of the pissing and moaning about what ipv6 looked like completely missed the point

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 7:46 AM, Scott Morizot wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:51 PM Oliver O'Boyle wrote: They're getting better at it, at least. They also recently added v6 support in their NLBs and you can get a /56 for every VPC for direct access. I don't think they offer BYO v6 yet, as

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 12:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use iphones. Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/27/21 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Actually, I think it’s in the fine print here… “Connection setup is 1.4 times faster”. I can believe that NAT adds almost 40% overhead to the connection setup (3-way handshake) and some of the differences in packet handling in the fast path

Re: AWS and IPv6

On 11/28/21 1:17 PM, Karl Auer wrote: On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 12:53 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: I was reading their howto yesterday and it seems they are only allocating a /64? Why? That's a /64 *per subnet*... But the size of a VPC's IPv6 CIDR block does seem to be fixed at /56. Would have

Re: AWS and IPv6

On 11/27/21 2:44 PM, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: The Register says: AWS claims 'monumental step forward' with optional IPv6-only networks I was reading their howto yesterday and it

Re: AWS and IPv6

On 11/28/21 3:50 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:10:40PM -0800, William Herrin wrote: On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 1:18 PM Karl Auer wrote: On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 12:53 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: I was reading their howto yesterday and it seems they are only allocating a /64

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use iphones. *Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4*

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

*From:*Michael Thomas *Sent:* November 26, 2021 7:37 PM *To:* Oliver O'Boyle *Cc:* Jean St-Laurent ; Ca By ; North American Network Operators' Group *Subject:* Re: IPv6 and CDN's That's a start, I guess. Before all they had was some weird VPN something or other. Let me guess though

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 3:11 PM, Ca By wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:07 PM Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/26/21 1:44 PM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: Here are some maths and 1 argument kicking ass pitch for CFO’s that use iphones. *Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

On 11/26/21 4:15 PM, Jean St-Laurent wrote: We now have apple and fb saying ipv6 is faster than ipv4. If we can onboard Amazon, Netflix, Google and some others, then it is a done deal that ipv6 is indeed faster than ipv4. Hence, an easy argument to tell your CFO that you need IPv6 for your

Re: IPv6 and CDN's

guess. Before all they had was some weird VPN something or other. Let me guess though: they are monetizing their market failure. Mike On Fri., Nov. 26, 2021, 19:28 Michael Thomas, wrote: On 11/26/21 4:15 PM, Jean St-Laurent wrote: We now have apple and fb saying ipv6 is faster

Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

On 11/19/21 2:44 PM, John Levine wrote: It appears that Michael Thomas said: And just as impossible since it would pop it out of the fast path. Does big iron support ipv6 these days? My research associate Ms. Google advises me that Juniper does: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en

Re: multihoming

On 11/25/21 11:54 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: Christopher Morrow writes: Also, for completeness, MP-TCP clearly does not help UDP or ICMP flows... nor IPSEC nor GRE nor... unless you HTTP over MP-TCP and encap UDP/ICMP/GRE/IPSEC over that! IP over DNS has been a thing forever. IP over DoH

Re: ipv4 on mobile networks

On 10/23/21 11:52 AM, Ca By wrote: On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 10:33 AM Michael Thomas wrote: So I'm curious how the mobile operators deploying ipv6 to the handsets are dealing with ipv4. The simplest would be to get the phone a routable ipv4 address, but that would seemingly

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >