RE: www.RT.com bad dns record

Matt Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 06:36:23PM -0700, Ca By wrote: > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016, Spencer Ryan wrote: > > > > > Dotted-quad notation is completely valid, and works fine. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Presentation > > > > > > http://[:::37.48.10

RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels

Matthew, I was not complaining about the business model, or the need to comply with content provider requirements. The issue is the pathetic implementation choice that Netflix made when a trivial alternative was available. I agree that setting up rwhois and trusting the 3rd party tunnel provid

RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels

Ca By wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, chris wrote: > > > it really feels alot like what net neutrality was supposed to avoid. > > making a policy where there is different treatment of one set of bits > > over another > > > > "your ipv6 bits are bad but if you turn it off the ipv4 bits are just

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Keenan Tims wrote: > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? > > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. > That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective,

RE: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

Dovid Bender wrote: > I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt > anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a > mystery. > No mystery ... It wastes bits that could otherwise be used to watch cat videos. ;) Tony

RE: Remember "Internet-In-A-Box"?

Ricky Beamwrote: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:32:19 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote: > > You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything DHCP > > does has to also be done via RA's. > > I blame the anti-DHCP crowd for a lot of things. RAs are just dumb. > There's a reason IPv4 can do *ever

RE: Speaking of NTP...

I have had a consistent 10ms offset on a set of servers for the last 5 years. After extensive one-way tracing, it turns out there is a 20ms asymmetry "within" the Seattle Westin colo between HE & Comcast, causing all the IPv6 peers appearing over the HE tunnel to be 10ms offset from everything e

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Joe Maimon wrote: > Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > > This isn’t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there is enough > embedded logic in devices that it doesn’t make that much sense. > > Enough to scuttle all previous drafts. > > > linux > > a little google comes up with this > > http://www.g

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

George Metz wrote: > > snip > > Split the difference, go with a /52 > >> > > > > That's not splitting the difference. :) A /56 is half way between a > > /48 and a /64. That's 256 /64s, for those keeping score at home. > > > > It's splitting the difference between a /56 and a /48. I can't imagin

RE: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Randy Bush wrote: > > I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the > > distraction might help with those still holding out hope. > > i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is increasing > slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire. Are you p

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Mel Beckman wrote: > Owen, > > By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything > wrong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Actually 30 years ago it was very difficult to get a /8 even for a US Gov organization. I have firsthand experience with being r

RE: Overlay broad patent on IPv6?

There is prior art here, and likely patents held by HP http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bound-dstm-exp-04 > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur > Norddahl > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:10 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Fwd: Overlay

RE: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Owen DeLong wrote: > I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it would reduce costs related to evaluating "need", so the lack of fee income would not

RE: How long will it take to completely get rid of IPv4 or will it happen at all?

Bob Evans wrote: > > Our fundamental issue is that an IPv4 address has no real value as networks > still give them away, it's pennies in your pocket. Everything of use needs to > have a cost to motivate for change. Establishing that now won't create > change it will first create greater conservati

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ray Soucy wrote: > I don't really feel I was trying to take things out of context, but the full > quote > would be: > > "If there were consensus that delegating a prefix of sufficient size via > DHCPv6 PD of a sufficient size is an acceptable substitute for stateful > IPv6 addressing in the envir

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ray Soucy wrote: > > Respectfully disagree on all points. > > The statement that "Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it would > implement DHCPv6 PD." is troubling because you're not even willing to > entertain the idea for reasons that are rooted in idealism rather than > pragmatis

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@colitti.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:47 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Chris Adams; NANOG Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:I claim that there is a platform bug, because

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

> -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael > Abrahamsson > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:39 PM > To: Chris Adams > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Chris Adams wrote: > > > Androi

RE: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)

Randy Bush wrote: > but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149 ;)

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

> -Original Message- > From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com > [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:10 PM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: Hugo Slabbert; Matt Palmer; nanog list > Subject: Re: AWS Elastic IP architec

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

Hugo Slabbert wrote: >>> snip > > On this given point, though: Facebook -ne generic hosting platform True, but it does represent a business decision to choose IPv6. The relevant point here is that the "NEXT" facebook/twitter/snapchat/... is likely being pushed by clueless investors into outsourc

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

>>> snip > > What I read in your line of comments to Owen is that the service only does > a header swap once and expects the application on the VM to compensate. > In that case there is an impact on the cost of deployment and overall utility. > > 'compensate' ? do you mean 'get some extra informa

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

> -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of > Christopher Morrow > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 7:24 AM > To: Matt Palmer > Cc: nanog list > Subject: Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Matt Palmer > wrote: > > On Sun,

RE: Multiple vendors' IPv6 issues

David, While I agree with you that there is no excuse for the general IPv6 brokenness across all vendors, they are just doing what participants on lists like this one tell them. Name&Shame may help a little, but until a large number of people get serious and stop prioritizing IPv4 in their purc

RE: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

> -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:30 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house > > > I think it's more than AC power issuewho knows wh

RE: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch

Randy wrote: > I've enjoyed kernel hot patches (ksplice) until now. > > So my primary concern is that updates to systemd appears to require a full > reboot: > > http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=300166 > > Is systemd really like a 2nd 'kernel' -- demanding mass reboots every time a

RE: Dealing with abuse complaints to non-existent contacts

I have found the scaling is better if you make it the abusing providers problem to contact you. Whenever a range gets blocked, the bounce message tells the mail originator to take their money and find a new hosting provider that does not support/tolerate spam. When legitimate originators have co

RE: Need trusted NTP Sources

> -Original Message- > From: Notify Me [mailto:notify.s...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:54 AM > To: Aled Morris > Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Martin Hotze > Subject: Re: Need trusted NTP Sources > > Raspberries! Not common currency here either, but let's see! While I would be

RE: turning on comcast v6

Ryan Harden wrote: ... > > IMO, being able to hand out gateway information based on $criteria via > DHCPv6 is a logical feature to ask for. Anyone asking for that isn't trying to tell > you that RA is broken, that you're doing things wrong, or that their way of > thinking is more important that yo

RE: turning on comcast v6

(Yes this is a top post ... get over it) Thank you Leo for doing such a great job in this scenario of explaining why acronym familiarity has much more to do with people's entrenched positions, than the actual network manageability they claim to be worried about. The hyperbolic nonsense in >>> rep

RE: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Brian Dickson wrote: > > And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence > > that every network (LAN) must be a /64. Get your history straight. The /64 was an outcome of operators deciding there was not enough room for hierarchy in the original proposal for the IPv6 address as

RE: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

Ricky Beam wrote: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom > wrote: > > So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd... > > Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable user > want/need. > > How many residential, "home networks", hav

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

e www. and retry. In any case, the Alexa file points to names that do not serve web content, so the entire 'top 1M' list is suspect. Tony > -----Original Message- > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-i...@tndh.net] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 3:50 PM > To: 'Owen DeLong

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

IPv4 has IPv6" & 0 "no IPv4 has IPv6". In other words, there are more dead names than there are records, and there are not any IPv6-only sites in that group. Tony > -Original Message- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Frida

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

2.242.195.129 > -Original Message- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:16 PM > To: joel jaeggli > Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu; Tony Hain; NANOG List > Subject: Re: NAT64 and matching identities > > It would be way more than 2

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

Lee Howard 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. > > > >A slightly different metr

RE: Reverse DNS RFCs and Recommendations

John Levine wrote: > Right. Spam filtering depends on heuristics. Mail from hosts without > matching forward/reverse DNS is overwhelmingly bot spam, so checking for > it is a very effective heuristic. Leading digit is clearly in widespread use beyond 3com & 1and1. One of the most effective heur

RE: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

Lee Howard wrote: > On 4/23/13 7:44 PM, "Geoff Huston" wrote: > > >On 24/04/2013, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Latham wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Valdis Kletnieks > >> wrote: > >>> I didn't see any mention of this Tony

RE: How far must muni fiber operators protect ISP competition?

IMHO: level of clue is a minor point, as that can be bought. The fundamental issues for a project like this are funding, and intent. Well-funded organizations that lack intent are just problem children that like to tie up the courts to keep others from making progress. The target for a project

RE: "Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications"....

Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > If the entire deployment path automatically requires 84 layers of NAT > sludge, that's what gets tested, cause it "works" for "everybody". > > Hence my questions regarding the actual momentum behind end-to-end > n

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > > Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who > want to sustain their business. > > I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Operators are all free to choose

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Mike Jones wrote: > > On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low > >> for a number of reasons. > > > > AMS-IX publishes stats too: > >

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Tomas Podermanski wrote: > > Hi, > > It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first time when > native IPv6 on google statistics > (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some > might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-)

RE: IPv4 address length technical design

> Sadiq Saif [mailto:sa...@asininetech.com] wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell > wrote: > > Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32 > bits for an IPv4 address? > > > > Cheers. > > I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - https://tools.ie

RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

> -Original Message- > From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org] > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:13 AM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8 > > On 21/09/2012 00:47, Tony Hain wrote: &g

RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

> -Original Message- > From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:37 PM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8 > > On 20/09/2012 20:14, Tony Hain w

RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

> -Original Message- > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmai...@ttec.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:11 AM > To: George Herbert > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8 > > ... > > Baking in bogonity is bad. Really ??? If stack ven

RE: Big Temporary Networks

> -Original Message- > From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:21 PM > To: David Miller > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks > > David Miller wrote: > > > So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a subop

RE: using "reserved" IPv6 space

Randy Bush wrote: > > The fact that your prefix is a Secret Sauce that isn't known to the > > rest of the world won't matter much to an attacker. One 'ifconfig' on > > whatever beachhead machine the attacker has inside your net, and it's > > not Secret Sauce anymore, it's just another bottle of Th

RE: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Masataka Ohta > Tony Hain wrote: > > >> It is because you avoid to face the reality of MLD. > > > MLD != ND > > MLD == IGMP > > OK. > > > ND ~= ARP > > Wrong, because ND requires MLD while ARP does not. Note the ~ ... And ARP requires medi

RE: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Masataka Ohta wrote: > Karl Auer wrote: > > >> : I've seen links with up to 15k devices where ARP represented > >> : a significant part of the link usage, but most weren't (yet) IPv6. > >> > >> MLD noise around a router is as bad as ARP/ND noise. > > > > Possibly true, but that's another discussio

RE: Interested in input on tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology

Fundamentally tunneling allows you to introduce the new technology while you work through budgeting / amortization-of-legacy / resistance-to-change issues. The Internet as we know it was built as a tunnel overlay to the voice system, and the underlying operators of that time said the overlay cou

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

Igor Gashinsky wrote: > :: >> In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency > related issues > :: >> they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and > publishing > :: >> the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their > content. They > :: >> choose t

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

> -Original Message- > From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@dougbarton.us] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:11 PM > To: Jared Mauch > Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arie Vayner > Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 > > On 05/09/2011 10:27, Jared Mauch wrote: > > I do feel the bar that Yahoo is setting is too high

RE: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

Benson Schliesser wrote: > On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that > >> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this > >> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in > >> ope

RE: IPv6 - a noobs prespective

Franck Martin wrote: > This is dual stack, my recommendation is disable IPv6 on your servers > (so your clients will still talk to them on IPv4 only), and let your > client goes IPv6 first. Once you understand what is happening, get on > IPv6 on your servers. You don't have to disable IPv6 on the

RE: ipv4's last graph

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Barnes [mailto:richard.bar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:44 AM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: Vincent Hoffman; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: ipv4's last graph > > Note that the ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE lin

RE: ipv4's last graph

> -Original Message- > From: Vincent Hoffman [mailto:jh...@unsane.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:44 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: ipv4's last graph > > On 02/02/2011 17:22, Matthew Petach wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:01 AM,

RE: ipv4's last graph

So in the interest of 'second opinions never hurt', and I just can't get my head around "APnic sitting at 3 /8's, burning 2.3 /8's in the last 2 months and the idea of a 50% probability that their exhaustion event occurs Aug. 2011", here are a couple other graphs to consider. http://www.tndh.net/~t

RE: ipv4's last graph

The individual RIR graphs won't be around long enough to be worth the effort... ;) FWIW: the Jan. 2011 global burn rate (outbound from the RIRs) for /24-equivlents was 18.97 seconds. At the Jan. rate, APnic won't last to June and Ripe might make to the end of August, then chaos ensues. Is there r

RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

Owen DeLong wrote: > .. > I suspect that there are probably somewhere between 30,000 > and 120,000 ISPs world wide that are likely to end up with a /32 > or shorter prefix. A /32 is the value that a start-up ISP would have. Assuming that there is a constant average rate of startups/failures pe

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

*requested anonymous* wrote: > (I don't post on public mailing lists, so, please consider this > private. > That is, I don't care if the question/reply are public, just, not the > source.) > > On 1/10/11 11:46 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > ... yes I know

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

... yes I know you understand operational issues. While managed networks can 'reverse the damage', there is no way to fix that for consumer unmanaged networks. Whatever gets deployed now, that is what the routers will be built to deal with, and it will be virtually impossible to change it due to t

RE: Interesting IPv6 viral video

No idea where this came from, and no I didn't have any part in it. If I had, the rental rates on addresses would have been much more in the range of extortion... ;) > -Original Message- > From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:ober...@es.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:59 PM > To: Zaid Ali

RE: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

You didn't miss anything, past ARIN practice has been broken, though using sparse allocation it is not quite as bad as you project. In any case, ISP's with more than 10k customers should NEVER get a /32, yet that is what ARIN insisted on giving even the largest providers in the region. Every ISP sh

RE: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8 address block

John Curran wrote: > On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN > > region drain rate. > > Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to > either drain rate is quite reasonable. For what it'

RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA

Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > > It's really unfortunate that most people don't understand the > distinction. > If they did, it would help them to realize that NAT doesn't actually do > anything for security, it just helps with address conservation > (although > it has some limits there, as well). Ac

RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

This 'get a /32' BAD ADVICE has got to stop. There are way too many people trying to force fit their customers into a block that is intended for a start-up with ZERO customers. Develop a plan for /48 per customer, then go to ARIN and get that size block. Figure out exactly what you are going to as

RE: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

While I appreciate Bill's attempt to raise attention to the draft, I needed to update it anyway with the intent to greatly simplify things and hopefully clarify at the same time. Given the interest level in this thread, I will ask for comments here before publishing the updated I-D. Replace intro

RE: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

David Conrad wrote: > > Ok, lets start with not breaking the functionality we have today > > in IPv4. Once you get that working again we can look at new > > ideas (like RA) that might have utility. Let the new stuff live/die > on > > it's own merits. The Internet is very good at sorting out the u

RE: Practical numbers for IPv6 allocations

Doug Barton wrote: > [ I normally don't say this, but please reply to the list only, thanks. > ] > > I've been a member of the "let's not assume the IPv6 space is > infinite" school from day 1, even though I feel like I have a pretty > solid grasp of the math. Others have alluded to some of the re

RE: AH or ESP

Merike Kaeo wrote: ... > ESP-Null came about when folks > realized AH could not traverse NATs. Thus the absolute reason why people should promote AH to kill off the 66nat nonsense. Just because you can't use it for IPv4 is no reason to avoid using it for IPv6 now and let its momentum suppress th

RE: IPv6 Confusion

christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote: > >... > > Yes people expect 1:1 functionality, but how many of them are > stepping up to > > how many vendors are implementing willy-nilly v4 feature requests for > their enterprise/isp customers? does it not seem reasonable to look at > each one and say: "Gosh

RE: IPv6 Confusion

David Conrad wrote: > Tony, > > On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > The bottom line is, if you want something to be defined in a way > > that works for you, you have to participate in the definition. > > Well, yes. But there is an impedance mismatch he

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Randy Bush wrote: > > The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF > has > > resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because > nobody > > stood up and did the work to make it happen. > > the ops gave up on the ietf because it did no good to participate. so

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Leo Bicknell wrote: > ... > The last time I "participated" a working group chair told me "operators > don't know what they are talking about" and went on to say they should > be ignored. So did you believe him and stop participating? Seriously, the -ONLY- way the IETF can be effective is for the

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Daniel Senie wrote: > >... > > No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from > IPv4. If > > anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is > specify > > it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the > IETF has > > resulted in the situat

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Leo Bicknell wrote: > ... > But, when DHCPv6 was developed the "great minds of the world" decided > less functionality was better. There /IS NO OPTION/ to send a default > route in DHCPv6, making DHCPv6 fully dependant on RA's being turned on! > So the IETF and other great minds have totally remov

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > If you want SLAAC or RA or whatever, more power to you. Some > installations > do not. They want DHCP equivalent functionality with the same > security model. It is always amusing when people equate DHCP with security... Outside of that, I do agree with you that the

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Justin Shore wrote: > ... > At this point I'm looking at doing 6to4 tunnels far into the future. You can forget that, as CGN will break 6to4. Get used to teredo (miredo), and if that is impeded don't be surprised when IPv6 over SOAP shows up. Tony

RE: IPv6 Confusion

David Conrad wrote: > Tony, > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > > This being a list of network engineers, there is a strong bias > > toward tools > > that allow explicit management of the network. This is a fine > > position, and > > thos

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Joe Provo wrote: > This is highly amusing, as for myself and many folks the experience > of these 'other protocols', when trying to run in open, scalable, > and commercially-viable deployments, was to encapsulate in IP(v4) > at the LAN/WAN boundary. It is no wonder that is the natural reaction > t

RE: IPv6 Confusion

David Conrad wrote: > On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. > > Unfortunately, I gather this isn't what end users or network operators > want or expect. I suspect if we want to make real inroads towards > IPv6

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > > > While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are > > implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at > > this > > point. The basic message is

RE: IPv6 Confusion

While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer, and you need t

RE: IPv6 routing /48s

Jack Bates wrote: > . > Yes and no. The test that was being run used 6to4 addresses, so every > 6to4 capable device did try to reach it via 6to4, since that is > preferred over IPv4. If it had used non-6to4 addressing, then IPv4 > would > had been preferred on those hosts that didn't have non-

RE: IPv6 Wow

Nathan Ward wrote: ... > 2) If Teredo relays are deployed close to the service (ie. content, > etc.) then performance is almost equivalent to IPv4. 6to4 relies on > relays being close to both the client and the server, which requires > end users' ISPs to build at least *some* IPv6 infrastructure, m

RE: Geographic map of IPv6 availability

Nathan Ward wrote: > On 6/10/2007, at 3:18 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > > Given the above, I think there is no myth.. ! > > That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting > records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea. > > For example, due mainly to Vista

RE: Security gain from NAT (was: Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff)

Jim Shankland wrote: > Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There's no security gain from not having real IPs on machines. > > Any belief that there is results from a lack of understanding. > > This is one of those assertions that gets repeated so often people > are liable to start believi

RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

essage- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:40 PM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: 'John Curran'; 'Donald Stahl'; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted > > > This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are r