that would be a throwback, if my MTA supported full-length bangpaths.
On 19-12-04 01 h 56, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote:
> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4
addresses of
> their own at all?
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of
> > their own at all?
>
> if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail
> servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.
>
> randy
>
...!6to
On 3/12/19 17:47, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>> On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>> I believe that Dmitry's
On 12/3/19 10:04 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using
somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though
OTOH, many many organizations, especially outside of service providers,
in fact DO such a thing. I'd suspect
> On Dec 3, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said:
>
>> I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22
>> of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6,
>
> As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack. Ho
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said:
> I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22
> of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6,
As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack. How does Reliance do this
without any v4 address space?
pgpZzt54PJqbb.p
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 09:51, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
>
>> Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using
>> someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell
>> nothing.
>
> Oth
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> Why not use someone elseâs IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with
> using
> someone elseâs IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell
> nothing.
Other than the fact that a /24 is being advertised out of one AS
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
> On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>>>
> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4
>>>
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:12:27 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> Email is often out sourced so you donât need your own IPv4 addresses for
> that.
> Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you donât need your
> own IPv4
> addresses.
Are you seriously trying to say "If you're a new compa
On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>>
I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses
for new
organizations deploying dual-stack
>>>
>>
> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of
> their own at all?
if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail
servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area.
randy
> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
>
>>> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses
>>> for new
>>> organizations deploying dual-stack
>>
>> I think I understood what you meant, but not
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said:
> > I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses
> > for new
> > organizations deploying dual-stack
>
> I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said.
> If someone is dual stack, they are IPv6-capable
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 18:05 , Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> On 12/1/19 8:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> End Users
>> End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and
>> not for distribution to external users of their Internet services.
>
> I guess it's possible that thes
That’s a one-time fee for end-users (and it can be as low as $250 unless you
need a /40 or more).
If you’re an ISP, then yes, it’s $500 per year if you need a /40 or more (or as
little as $250 if you can
get buy on less than a /40).
Owen
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 17:23 , Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
Hi,
On 02/12/2019 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
> From: Mark Tinka
> [...]
> On 1/Dec/19 02:54, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy
>> IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very
>> usable
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:58 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> Does Verizon still own/manage ANY of their Fios territories? I thought it
> was all sold off to Frontier at this point. It certainly all is, along
> with all their legacy LEC territories not having FTTx and having some form
> of DSL, aroun
This is that reasoning that because this particular shiny bauble is
laying right here on the table then that's the whole picture.
More likely if some of them decided to sell that IPv4 block they'd
catch up on the rent or cut deductibles on the health care plan or or
get rid of some of that 100mb
On 12/1/19 8:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
End Users
End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not
for distribution to external users of their Internet services.
I guess it's possible that these networks would be considered end users,
but I get the impression th
End Users
End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not
for distribution to external users of their Internet services.
End Users with Registration Services Plan
End users may opt to pay for ARIN registration services on the same schedule as
ISPs detailed above b
I get $500, not $150, when I read the price list.
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient
> complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources
> for $150/year in registration fees?
>
> I suppose i
You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient
complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources for
$150/year in registration fees?
I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other
expenses associated with maintaining such a n
On 1/Dec/19 02:54, Brandon Martin wrote:
> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy
> IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very
> usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a
> "comparable" amou
On 30/Nov/19 18:45, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet. Scale shops
> have v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away,
> and that makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water
> in ipv4.
Well, China have scale, but perhap
Matthew Kaufman writes:
> This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
> development works:
Small addition/correction to this example
(which I find interesting and also sad):
> Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.
[...]
> Full support inclu
I'm still surprised that for $42/mo you can't afford IPv6. If you already have
a legacy allocation most cases you can get v6 for "free".
I get low budget stuff, but honestly it doesn't have to be you it could be one
upstream that gives you a /48 to get you started.
Sent from my iCar
> On Dec
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:55 PM Valdis Klētnieks
wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said:
>
> > User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
>
> And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?
>
Because of the layer at which failure happens. You get connected
On 11/30/19 8:55 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>> User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
> And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?
Inability to signal application-level failure on IPv6 and that fallback to IPv4
would succeed.
Netflix definitely exhibits this. I've also n
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said:
> User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly?
pgphoWWsRXmVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:57 PM Brandon Martin
wrote:
> On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6
> blocks
>
> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy
> IPv4 block but not be able to af
On 11/30/19 12:18 PM, Justin Streiner wrote:
> Verizon is an interesting case. While IPv6 penetration on the wireless side
> is very high, the same is not true on the Fios/DSL side. IPv6 deployment
> there is nearly nonexistent.
> I've heard rumblings that some early Fios users will need to hav
On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6 blocks
How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy IPv4
block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very usable
(/48 to /52 f
Sorry, thought this was the Tunnels part of the thread.
Kubernetes Container networking only supported one address per pod until
well *after* V6-only clusters were in alpha, so dual-stack want an option.
Point is, plenty of popular server-side infrastructure was designed
IPv4-first as late as 201
See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6
blocks
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:15 PM Filip Hruska wrote:
> You can announce your own IPv6 subnets through TunnelBroker.
>
> Filip
>
>
> On 30 November 2019 8:37:33 pm GMT+01:00, Matthew Kaufman <
> matt...@matthew.at> wrot
User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:29 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning
> off IPv4.
> --
> Mark Andrews
>
> On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
> This is a great exampl
And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning off
IPv4.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
> This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
> development works:
>
> IANA IPv4 runout January 2011.
>
> Ku
You can announce your own IPv6 subnets through TunnelBroker.
Filip
On 30 November 2019 8:37:33 pm GMT+01:00, Matthew Kaufman
wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have
>> native v6 from VZ.
>>
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner wrote:
>
>
> While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have
> native v6 from VZ.
>
Worked perfectly well. Until Netflix blocked all known tunnel providers.
Then my users demanded I turn IPv6 off... so I did. Won’t come back u
t; http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Brian Knight"
>> *To: *"Mark Andrews"
>> *Cc: *"nanog"
>> *Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
>
This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software
development works:
IANA IPv4 runout January 2011.
Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers.
ARIN IPv4 runout September 2015.
Support for IPv6-only Kubernetes clusters alphas in 1.9, December 2017.
I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an
allocation from the 44 net)
Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds
to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation.
We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because
early adopt
mmett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> -Brian
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Brian Knight"
> *To: *"Mark Andrews"
> *Cc: *"nanog"
>
-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
-Brian
>
> From: "Brian Knight"
> To: "Mark Andrews"
> Cc: "nanog"
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:04 -0500, Brandon Martin said:
> definitely the lagging factor, here. I suspect it's at least partially
> because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments
> for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to
> support first-class dual
On 11/29/19 11:29 AM, Brian Knight wrote:
0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some
service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6
connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
I help admin a very small (<1k subs, but growing) mu
ns
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Knight"
To: "Mark Andrews"
Cc: "nanog"
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark An
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
>>> wrote:
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
>
- On Nov 27, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
> I don't understand how you're using "teams" here. For the most part you
> turn it on, and end-user systems pick up the RA and do the right thing.
> If you want something fancier, you can do that with DHCP, static
> address
That’s absurd…
Yes, you have to support both for now. However, you really only need IPv4
addresses on each front-end box and you only need that until the proportion of
eyeball users that lack IPv6 capabilities is small enough to be considered no
longer worth the cost of support.
I doubt seriou
On 11/26/19 12:13 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
rolling out IPv6 costs less than all
IPv6 significantly offloads the CGN servers. If you are not yet using CGN
you probably won't care, but sooner or later you will.
Thanks to the content providers that make this possible by offering enough
content by volume available on the IPv6 internet.
Regards
Baldur
>> On Nov 27, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Brandon Butterworth
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -0600, Brian Knight wrote:
>> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball
>> customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet
>> content & service
>> Brian Knight wrote :
>> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers.
>> They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content &
>> services via IPv4 in 2019.
> Mark Andrews wrote :
> No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IP
> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight wrote:
>
> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
>> wrote:
>>> - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of enviro
--- sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
From: "Scott Weeks"
No, it's just that (at least in my case at several different
companies) we're so focused by management on getting the sale
done by augmenting the existing network there is not enough
time to devote to **planning an entire network from the
> Brian Knight wrote :
> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers.
> They
> can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & services via
> IPv4 in 2019.
And will for the foreseable future. I am not one of your customers, but I like
your reali
--- bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
From: Brandon Butterworth
If you're an internet professional you are a negligent one if by
now you are not ensuring all you build quietly includes IPv6, no
customer should need to know to ask for it. It's not like it
needs different kit.
On Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -0600, Brian Knight wrote:
> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball
> customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet
> content & services via IPv4 in 2019. I regularly vet deals for our
> sales team, and out o
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sabri volunteered the information that they are an MBA at a large eyeball
> network with 20 teams...
You drew the wrong conclusions. I wrote: "I have some inside knowledge about
the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball network". I a
On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
wrote:
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
[snip]
there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs
to
be a strong case to invest the capex to suppo
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:40:11 PM
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By
If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different
issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional.
-
I was just expr
Speaking as being a trifle self-entitled?
On 27/11/2019 00:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- c...@firsthand.net wrote:
From: Christian
Sounds like your company is about to go offline. So I will
say bye bye for now just in case it happens faster than you
expected.
---
On Tuesday 2019-11-26 00:13, Sabri Berisha wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the
contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs
have bonus targets. IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of
that bonus target: there is no
> On 27 Nov 2019, at 11:40, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
>
> --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ca By
>
> If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different
> issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional.
> -
>
>
> I was just expressing the problems eyeba
--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By
If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different
issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional.
-
I was just expressing the problems eyeball networks are
having getting this done. Shittons of stuff is out there
--- c...@firsthand.net wrote:
From: Christian
Sounds like your company is about to go offline. So I will
say bye bye for now just in case it happens faster than you
expected.
-
Speaking of flippant... No the ILEC has been here since the
1800s.
cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By
To: Sabri Berisha
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:11:40 -0800
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
wrote:
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
I get that some people still don&
> Scott Weeks wrote :
> A lot of this read to me as flippant. You don't seem to be willing to listen
> to those of us out here on the raggedy edges.
And there are lots of us.
> I've said what Sabri said at least a few times on this list.
+1
Michel.
TSI Disclaimer: This message and any file
> On 27 Nov 2019, at 10:58, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>
> - On Nov 26, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Willy Manga mangawi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I would have said the very very minimum could be to invest in a
>> dual-stack 'proxy' for public-facing services; internal or external
>> solution, you
ongtail. The majority of
real bits/s and dollars are in ipv6. Ymmv. But i reject vehemently the
notion that v6 vanity project with no obvious business case / roi (Another
misstatement by Sabri).
If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different issue from ipv6
being dysfunctional.
> scott
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Willy Manga mangawi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
> I would have said the very very minimum could be to invest in a
> dual-stack 'proxy' for public-facing services; internal or external
> solution, you have the choice.
>
> And why even do that ? Because the other sid
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:26:44PM -0500, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
> would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
> have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
> trivial admini
to listen to those of us out here on the raggedy
edges. I've said what Sabri said at least a few times on this
list.
scott
--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By
To: Sabri Berisha
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:11:40 -0800
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
wrote:
> - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
>
> > I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> > folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> > rolling out
If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks
would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you
have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some
trivial administrative fee like $10 per year.
But the RIRs can't live on that.
We hav
Hello,
On 26/11/2019 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:13:48 -0800 (PST)
> From: Sabri Berisha
> To: Doug Barton
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> Message-ID:
> <1383247942.183700.1574756028904.javamail.zim...@cluecen
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
> folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
When the
On 2019-11-25 20:26, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6.
Or, folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what
point
rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
I
On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or,
folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point
rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.
If it weren't for the ongoing need to continue
On 2019-11-25 1:47 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
 I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to
v6.
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the
iling list"
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
> >
> > ��� I believe it���s Eyeball network���s matter to free IPv4 blocks
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
> >
> >  I believe itâs Eyeball networkâs matter to free IPv4 blocks and
> > move to v6.
> It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining
> working netwo
The two things feed each other. Big content networks have had IPv6 for
years now, and the mobile phone networks are primarily, if not
exclusively IPv6 on the inside.
Adding IPv6 now helps push the cycle forward, whether you are an
eyeball, content, or other network.
Doug
On 11/25/19 11:50
Because we can’t only use ipv6 on the boxes, each box with ipv6 must have IPv4
until the last eyeball broadband user will have ipv6 support.
Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il
dmi...@interhost.net
Mob: 054-3181182
Sent from Steve's creature
[X]
On 25 Nov 2019, at
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining
working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is
mostly happening today with CGN.
Every server that offers services to the public should be making them available
over IPv6. Most of the CDNs s
Message-
>>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
>>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
>>> To: NANOG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherma
> RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
--- jeffshu...@sctcweb.com wrote:
From: Jeff Shultz
Hard to say that something that is in full implementation
and use is dead.
---
Ok... In the process of dying a slow, painful, agonizing,
brutal, sickenin
I think the context was referring to RIPE's v4 space being dead.
>
> Hard to say that something that is in full implementation and use is dead.
>
> >
> > RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > >
> > > RIP RIPE
> > >>
> > >> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
> > To: NANOG mailing list
> > Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:5
RIP RIPE('s IPV4)*
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 11:19 AM
To: Ryland Kremeier
Cc: Andy Ringsmuth ; NANOG mailing list
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
Owen
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier
RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4.
Owen
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier
> wrote:
>
> RIP RIPE
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
> To: NANOG mailing list
&
I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6.
Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
[X]
On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook wrote:
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole
"Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?
On Mon, Nov 2
Thanks
I am lurking on this mail list. Sometimes is hard to decipher whats
goin on. Always interesting. You guys are awesome.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 16:57, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
> I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to
> delegate to the regional registries.
> https://
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole
"Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss?
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman wrote:
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we
RIP RIPE
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM
To: NANOG mailing list
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
> allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have
> now run out
I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to
delegate to the regional registries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d
Nice!
Is this what I think it is?a historical moment for the internet
for the story books?
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 15:59, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>
> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
>
Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:
Dear colleagues,
Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4
allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now
run out of IPv4 addresses.
Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.
100 matches
Mail list logo
