On 8 Jul 2010, at 03:00, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Zaid Ali wrote:
Are there any folks here who would be inclined to do SMTP over IPv6? I have
a test v6 network with is ready to do email but getting some real world data
to verify headers would be more helpful. Please send
On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:55, Bjørn Mork wrote:
This is far too diffuse. You'll get a yes, we've got IPv6.
You should at least add
- IPv6 packet filtering and policy management (at least simple access
lists)
snip
The point is: We've been asking for IPv6 for too long. That's just
one
On 6 Jan 2011, at 15:10, Lamar Owen wrote:
Ok, perhaps I'm dense, but why is the router going to try to find a host that
it already doesn't know based on an unsolicited outside packet? Why is the
router trusting the outside's idea of what addresses are active, and why
isn't the router
On 6 Jan 2011, at 17:17, Jack Bates wrote:
A randomly setup ssh server without DNS will find itself brute force
attacked. Darknets are setup specifically for detection of scans. One side
effect of v6, is determining how best to deploy darknets, as we can't just
take one or two blocks to
On 6 Jan 2011, at 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Packing everything densely is an obvious problem with IPv4; we learned
early on that having a 48-bit (32 address, 16 port) space to scan made
On 7 Jan 2011, at 06:11, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are
generally
a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME circumstances
in which they are either not necessary or insufficient.
As a draft, it hasn't been
On 7 Jan 2011, at 15:12, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
1. Block packets destined for your point-to-point links at your
borders. There's no legitimate reason someone should be
On 3 Feb 2011, at 14:49, Igor Ybema wrote:
I think they were under a TCP-SYN attack :)
The video was super choppy from here and I have bandwidth to burn at this
time of the day. A little disappointing, but I'm sure (fingers crossed)
someone will have a clean recording of it that they will
Which of the big boys are doing it?
Tim
On 18 Oct 2012, at 15:28, Tony Patti t...@swalter.com wrote:
http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/gallery/#/
Where the Internet lives - Take a look inside Google's high-tech data
centers
One of those photos looks like it came directly from the Hive in Resident Evil.
Now we know...
Tim
What about
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-03
?
--
Tim
On 14 Nov 2012, at 17:46, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Saw yet another attempt at a solution pop up to try and deal with the
lack of a MAC address in DHCPv6 messages.
I've been giving
On 20 Nov 2012, at 16:42, Mike Jones m...@mikejones.in wrote:
If these figures are representative (google saying 1% of users and
AMSIX saying 0.5% of traffic) then it would indicate that dual stacked
users can push ~50% of their traffic over IPv6. If this is even close
to reality then that
On 27 Nov 2012, at 14:50, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
sorry if the facts did not support your conclusion. they do support
mine.
Pointers to these facts would be greatly appreciated, especially as no
one else seems to know where to find them.
to repeat, a very large broadband provider
On 27 Nov 2012, at 23:44, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Given the number of network engineers compared to the number of tunnel broker
subscribers just at Hurricane Electric, I don't think that argument holds
water.
We have actually made using a tunnel broker very easy and provide
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
skip a note about isc having quite a few legacy blocks
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
There is nothing stopping us
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:34:51AM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this problematic? I mean, the whole point
of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again
have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts
us anywhere
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:24:30AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
Sorry to be a curmudgeon and let me play devil's advocate for a minute.
I realize that the address space is enormous; gigantic, even, but if we
treat it as cavalierly as you all are proposing, it will get used up.
If its
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:15:39PM -0400, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
In practice, changing stuff, especially globally, is not as simple
as that.
From http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4192:
'Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that
So the issue of ULAs has come up in the IETF homenet WG. The homenet WG is
considering routing, prefix delegation, security, naming and service discovery.
ULA support is written into RFC6204 (basic IPv6 requirements for CPE routers)
so home CPEs should have the capability, and should be able
On 26 Jan 2012, at 11:10, George Bonser wrote:
The potential advantage of ULAs is that you have a stable internal
addressing scheme within the homenet, while your ISP-assigned prefix
may change over time. You run ULAs alongside your PA prefix. ULAs are
not used for host-based NAT. The
Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line.
On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote:
Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or
GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic
between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in
On 26 Jan 2012, at 16:53, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Does this mean we're also looking at residential allocations larger
than a /64 as the norm?
We certainly should be. I still think that /48s for residential is the right
answer.
My /48 is
On 12 Mar 2012, at 19:30, Owen DeLong wrote:
I know my view is unpopular, but, I really would rather see PI made
inexpensive and readily available than see NAT brought into the IPv6
mainstream. However, in my experience, very few residential customers make
use of that 3G backup port.
So
On 15 Mar 2012, at 21:03, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:35:13 PDT, George Herbert said:
What, senior network people testing out new test/transitional space at
home before they test it at work is bad?
Either that, or Randy was being snarky about how long the promise
On 20 Aug 2012, at 16:39, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Shumon Huque shu...@upenn.edu wrote:
On 8/20/12 10:11 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
The problem is RFC 3484 address selection; getaddrinfo is just the usual
place this is implemented. I had believed that there was work in progress
to fix
On 18 Sep 2012, at 15:32, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 18/09/2012 15:07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Department of Work and Pensions UK in Possession of 16.9 Million Unused IPv4
Addresses
unused? sez who? Oh, it said it on the internet so it must be true.
Other than that, I'm
On 25 Sep 2012, at 14:50, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
I propose to mention educational institutions by name,
There's an awful lot of those using 802.1x. It'll be some list :)
Tim
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:38:11PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Brian Wallingford br...@meganet.net wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Jay Hennigan wrote:
:We're a regional ISP, about 80% SMB 20% residential. We're seeing
:almost double our normal
Nice quality feed, thanks, receiving fine here on UK academic network campus.
Tim
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 09:57:26AM -0400, Anton Kapela wrote:
The source for 233.0.59.45 is kona.doit.wisc.edu and has address
128.104.23.100, hope that helps!
-Tk
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Antonio
Hi,
Just a minor comment - yesterday the projector screen appeared larger in
the streamed picture (I think we only saw one screen?) and was readable.
Today the view seems to have been made wider, and both screens appear
brighter and smaller and no longer readable on the HD stream.
Would be
- Original Message -
From: Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:10:52 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: NANOG stream - projector screens
Hi,
Just a minor comment - yesterday the projector screen appeared larger in
the streamed
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:11:38PM +0100, Mathias Wolkert wrote:
Thanks all for your input.
One thing that hits me is how different networks are documented.
Are there any best practice communicated (RFC/IETF)?
As an aside, for ASCII network diagrams a la Internet Draft, I found that
Email
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 03:05:43PM -0600, Dale W. Carder wrote:
On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
Is there something like this already that anyone knows of?
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-02.txt
There will be an update of this prior to March's IETF.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 08:16:56AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
If you can't get native IPv6 then use a tunneled service like
Hurricane Electric's (HE.NET). It is qualitatively better than
6to4 as it doesn't require random nodes on the net to be performing
translation services for you which
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:14:13AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Nathan Ward wrote:
Perhaps they have Teredo and 6to4, and could not reach you via 6to4 so
instead used Teredo, or, any number of scenarios.
I think their only IPv6 connectivity was Teredo (for
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:42:50AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
Does it make sense/work to do this for internal operations even if our
outside connections are IPv4 only (forget about tunneling). Even more
mundane questions like how to deal with IPv4 only networked printers
when everything
On 9 Apr 2011, at 04:56, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:51 AM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
My question is - does anyone have any suggestions for another e-mail
appliance like the Barracuda Spam Firewall that doesn't try to charge their
customers for time not used
On 12 Apr 2011, at 07:33, Michael DeMan wrote:
Call me and old 'hard case' - but I prefer that when I get information via
email, that if possible, the relevant information show up immediately.
Call me lazy I guess - but I would expect that most folks on this list have
also understood
On 23 Apr 2011, at 23:29, Tom Hill wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 13:09 -0500, Kevin Day wrote:
For those that don't know, World of Warcraft is currently the largest online
role playing game, with somewhere over 12 million subscribers.
Version 4.1 of the game is expected to be released this
On 27 Apr 2011, at 00:21, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
Kevin Day toa...@dragondata.com wrote:
...
To get ahead of the issue, we've put an IPv6 option into the World of
Warcraft interface with patch 4.1. So as IPv6 starts to become more
widely available the game will already be prepared to handle
On 27 Apr 2011, at 08:19, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Andrew Kirch wrote:
I'm not complaining, but I would point out that if these free brokers are
the public face of IPv6 for many hobbyists (and much of the various software
run on/over the internet is written by
On 29 Apr 2011, at 03:26, Rob V wrote:
Not just that ... Youtube is apparently expecting 400 million (?!) viewers!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20110428/tc_zd/263745
The doomsayers are out with freshly painted signs ... the Internet will break
tomorrow morning! :-)
Must say the quality
On 31 May 2011, at 22:31, Voll, Toivo wrote:
Netalyzr (http://n3.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/analysis) finds no issues with
my IPv6 status, but alerts me to the fact (since confirmed by switching to
IE) that Google Chrome defaults to IPv4 rather than IPv6, and consequently a
lot of the
On 3 Jun 2011, at 10:13, Owen DeLong wrote:
As I said before, provide pointers to resources where users can follow up on
actually
resolving the issues. Their ISP, their IT department, web pages with
additional
information on how to diagnose the problem, etc.
I would guess a typical user
On 3 Jun 2011, at 01:08, andrew.wallace wrote:
World anything day is a sure-shot bet win at an anti-climax, and an
industry failure and waste of investment and publicity campaign.
The day passing without any significant userland issues would make it a success.
It's a good opportunity to
On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:30, Jason Fesler wrote:
I would have expected the green+azure areas in those graphs to have
increased in the past half year but counter-intutitively, it appears that
IPv4 only usage is increasing.
You're assuming there's significant rollout of IPv6. Everything I've
On 7 Jun 2011, at 04:47, Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:56:32 +, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org said:
PV it's been a while since i looked at the query stream still hitting
PV importantly and happily, there's a great deal of IPv6 happening
PV here.
Which is reaffirming what
On 7 Jun 2011, at 20:04, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I thought the goal was to get everyone to try out IPv6. Doesn't that
include the miscreants? :)
Well, if I was evil I'd be looking for IPv6 back doors tomorrow...
Tim
On 8 Jun 2011, at 04:46, Jared Mauch wrote:
We have seen a traffic increase but nothing like what I was expecting, nay
hoping to see. (i.e.: gigs and gigs of traffic - it does look like ~2x to me
in an unscientific eye-look at a chart).
Some of it may be down to client behaviour.
On 8 Jun 2011, at 02:05, David Swafford wrote:
This is amusing:
In case the formatting get's lost, their initial address includes
face:booc and one of the hops along the way is dead:beef. :-)
Cisco's is better...
$ ping6 www.cisco.com
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:630:d0:f103::c0:ffee --
On 9 Jun 2011, at 05:36, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 17:37 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
Dumb question.. what does the switch (L2) have to do with IPv6 (L3), or
is it one of those 'somewhere in between the two' things?
Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not directly
On 10 Jun 2011, at 11:20, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 jun 2011, at 12:10, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
So where do I point out the stupidity of trying to fix this non-brokenness?
Several large operators have said, repeatedly, that they want to use
DHCPv6 without RA. I disagree that
On 10 Jun 2011, at 15:08, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
(And it's insane that Windows still exhibits this completely broken behavior.)
We could derail into some broken MacOS X behaviour if you like ;)
Tim
On 10 Jun 2011, at 15:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 10 jun 2011, at 16:12, Tim Chown wrote:
(And it's insane that Windows still exhibits this completely broken
behavior.)
We could derail into some broken MacOS X behaviour if you like ;)
Not saying that Apple is perfect
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:00, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/19/2011 23:38, Mike Leber wrote:
On 6/19/11 10:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web
On 10 Jul 2011, at 21:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:23 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Consider, for example, RFC 3484. That's the one that determines how an
IPv6 capable host selects which of a group of candidate IPv4 and IPv6
addresses for a particular host name gets priority.
On 25 Jul 2011, at 15:50, Ray Soucy wrote:
Just wanted to drop a note as a was pretty harsh on Apple when rumors
of them not including DHCPv6 client support were floating about. In
the past few days I've also seen people post that OS X doesn't have
DHCPv6, because they were looking for
On 10 Aug 2011, at 16:11, Scott Helms wrote:
Neither of these are true, though in the future we _might_ have deployable
technology that allows for automated routing setup (though I very seriously
doubt it) in the home. Layer 2 isolation is both easier and more reliable
than attempting it
58 matches
Mail list logo
