How long, exactly, do you expect 3.2 billion unicast addresses to provide
enough addressing for 6.8+ billion people?
Oh, I'd say a decade. Like I said, I have IPv6 on my server and my home
broadband, which mostly works, with the emphasis on the mostly.
We've just barely started to move
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
FYI He tells everyone they¹re cute. Don¹t buy his tricks, he doesn¹t call
back the next morning.
Ps. Take it easy on each other. It¹s the beginning of spring.. Head
outside..
Spring!? Snow is in
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:10 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
It will be a long time
before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
worth the risk of going v6 only.
New ISP's are born everyday.
Some of them will be able to have a Buy an ISP that has
IPv4 or Buy IPv4 space from
On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
run services from home. That all their machines
shouldn't
I agree with one thing herein
In order for IPv6 to truly work, everyone needs to be moving towards IPv6.
Yep, chicken and the egg. I agree. We built an IPv6 native network - no
tunneling - no customers to speak of ... didn't even bother to start IPv6
peering on it.
Maintaining dual
On Mar 23, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/23/2014 2:27 PM, Timothy Morizot wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, Paul Ferguson
fergdawgs...@mykolab.com mailto:fergdawgs...@mykolab.com
wrote:
Also, IPv6
On Mar 23, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever.
It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue
that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of companies
are facing.
I
On 03/24/2014 06:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
So ULA the printers (if you must).
That doesn’t create a need for ULA on anything that talks to the internet, nor
does it create a requirement to do NPT or NAT66.
From a security perspective, I wouldn't trust my printer to not number
itself with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It is unsettling to see such dismissive attitudes.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the remainder of... everywhere to
figure out why there is resistance to v6 migration, and it isn't just
because people can't be bothered.
Your customers are your
Your attack surface has already expanded whether or not you deploy IPv6.
Not so. If I don't enable IPv6 on my hosts, the attacker can yammer
away via IPv6 all day long with no result.
If that were true, yes. The reality is that to make that a true statement,
you would have to modify it to:
I can easily answer that one as a holder of v4 space at a commercial entity.
The end user does not feel any compelling reason to move to ipv6 if they have
enough v4 space.
I can't give my employer a solid business case of why they need to make the
IPv6 transition. They already hold enough v4
On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:35:31 PM Denis Fondras wrote:
When speaking of IPv6 deployment, I routinely hear about
host security. I feel like it should be stated that this
is *in no way* an IPv6 issue. May the device be
Exactly right. In fact that is generous because the v6 host having a stateful
firewall has a real protocol aware firewall (and often bundled IDS/IPS
capability) not just a NAT to protect him.
The NAT provides almost no security once a single host behind the NAT is
compromised and makes an
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Addressable is not the same as
accessible; routable is not the same as routed.
Indeed. However, all successful security is about _defense in depth_.
If
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:21 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private
addressing does not equal security.
Hi Steve,
It is your privilege to
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 02:47:31 -, Naslund, Steve said:
Lots and lots of enterprises count on a hard perimeter and almost nothing
behind it so once I am in behind your NAT, you are unlikely to notice it until
something real bad happens. That is the state of most enterprise network
security
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Lopez alex.lo...@opsys.com wrote:
not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you change
an upstream provider.
Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of private
address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has
On Mar 24, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:21, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:21 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:
I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Lopez alex.lo...@opsys.com
wrote:
not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you
change an upstream provider.
Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of
private address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:48 PM
To: Owen DeLong; mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: misunderstanding scale
Look at it this way. If I see an attack coming from behind your NAT, I'm
In message f0ca01f52b274d13ad84dbfe6aad2...@bn1pr04mb250.namprd04.prod.outlook
.com, Alexander Lopez writes:
On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Alexander Lopez alex.lo...@opsys.com
wrote:
not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you
change an upstream provider.
Lopez alex.lo...@opsys.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:48 PM
To: Owen DeLong; mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: misunderstanding scale
Look at it this way. If I see an attack coming from
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 07:10:37 AM John Levine wrote:
In Africa, I suppose, but here in North America, the few
remaining ISPs that aren't part of giant cable or phone
companies are hanging on by their teeth.
Incidentally, this doesn't apply to Africa today, because
AFRINIC still have lots
* John Levine
Also, although it is fashionable to say how awful CGN is, the users
don't seem to mind it at all.
You might just be looking in the wrong places.
Try searching for playstation nat type 3 or xbox strict nat.
Tore
On 23/03/2014 03:00, Doug Barton wrote:
Hyperbole of the past doesn't negate the reality of the future. :)
the past and present hyperbole continues to grate.
With respect I think you're ignoring some pretty important facts. Not
the least of which is the level of pressure that's been taken off
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/23/2014 9:13 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
yep, agreed - doing ipv6 now is a sensible business proposition.
But it needs to be tempered with the realisation that for nearly
all networks, ipv6 is complementary to ipv4 and not a replacement;
nor
In message 20140323051037.94159.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
It will be a long time
before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
worth the risk of going v6 only.
New ISP's are born everyday.
Some of them will be able to have a Buy an ISP that has
IPv4 or Buy IPv4
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
run services from home. That all their machines
shouldn't have a globally unique address that is
theoritically reachable from
First, there may be those that do not require IPv6 due to size. So what is
YOUR big plan to connect all those on IPv4 to the rest of the IPv6 world
that has dropped IPv4 addresses.
We'll be offering v6 standard really soon. It's growth that got in the
way both from employee bandwidth and
On Mar 23, 2014 1:11 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
ends I could just log into the machines at home as
easily as if I was there. When I'm stuck using a IPv4
only
On Mar 23, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Basically because none of them have ever been on the Internet proper
where they can connect to their home machines from wherever they
are in the world directly. If you don't know what it should be
like you don't complain
On (2014-03-23 20:09 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:
I expect this to change little in the enterprise space. I
think use of ULA and NAT66 will be one of the things
enterprises will push for, because how can a printer have a
public IPv6 address that is reachable directly from the
Internet,
In message 201403232009.47085.mark.ti...@seacom.mu, Mark Tinka writes:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
ISP's have done a good job of brain washing their
customers into thinking that they shouldn't be able to
run services from home. That all their machines
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:27:57 PM Philip Dorr wrote:
That is what a firewall is for. Drop new inbound
connections, allow related, and allow outbound. Then
you allow specific IP/ports to have inbound traffic.
You may also only allow outbound traffic for specific
ports, or from your
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:30:21 PM Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
As far as the enterprise side of things, many of the
people working in that area today have likely never
known any other kind of network except the NAT kind. A
lot of these guys say things like 'private ip' and
'public ip' -
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:35:48 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
Or IT isn't buying the 'renumbering is easy' argument,
for any non-trivial size company even figuring how where
exactly can be IP addresses punched out statically would
be expensive and long process.
If you are pushing for customer to
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 08:39:51 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
Can I suggest that you re-read what I said. I did not
say WILL BE REACHABLE. I said THEORETICALLY
REACHABLE. I also said GLOBAL UNIQUE address not
PUBLIC ADDRESS.
The point is one should be able to get addresses with
these
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Philip Dorr tagn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 1:11 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
ends I could just log into the machines
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:05:54 PM Cb B wrote:
i would say the more appropriate place for this policy is
the printer, not a firewall. For example, maybe a
printer should only be ULA or LLA by default.
i would hate for people to think that a middle box is
required, when the best place
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:05:54 PM Cb B wrote:
i would say the more appropriate place for this policy is
the printer, not a firewall. For example, maybe a
printer should only be ULA or LLA by default.
i would hate
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:24:35 PM Cb B wrote:
My hope is that folks stop equating firewalls with
security, when the first step is to secure the host,
accountability is with the host, then layer other tools
as needed.
I couldn't agree more.
As an example, your home PC (whose OS wasn't
Hi all,
Le 23/03/2014 20:13, Mark Tinka a écrit :
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:05:54 PM Cb B wrote:
i would say the more appropriate place for this policy is
the printer, not a firewall. For example, maybe a
printer should only be ULA or LLA by default.
I would support adding security
On 23/03/2014 18:39, Mark Andrews wrote:
As for printers directly reachable from anywhere, why not.
because in practice it's an astonishingly stupid idea. Here's why:
chargen / other small services
ssh
www
buffer overflows
open smtp relays
weak, default or non existent passwords
information
In message 532f42aa.9000...@foobar.org, Nick Hilliard writes:
On 23/03/2014 18:39, Mark Andrews wrote:
As for printers directly reachable from anywhere, why not.
because in practice it's an astonishingly stupid idea. Here's why:
chargen / other small services
ssh
www
buffer overflows
On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
considering it.
And that is pure FUD. The sorts of security risks with IPv6 are mostly in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/23/2014 2:27 PM, Timothy Morizot wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, Paul Ferguson
fergdawgs...@mykolab.com mailto:fergdawgs...@mykolab.com
wrote:
Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until
they are properly addressed,
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:27:16PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
considering it.
And
On 23/03/2014 21:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need to clean
up their act and not that one shouldn't expect to be able to expose
a printer to the world. It isn't hard to do this correctly.
perish the thought - and I look forward to the day that
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:31:57PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 23/03/2014 21:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need to clean
up their act and not that one shouldn't expect to be able to expose
a printer to the world. It isn't hard to do this
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 07:57:04PM -, John Levine wrote:
In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for
IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when
everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or
frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone
On Mar 23, 2014 4:45 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Yo, Tim/Scott. Seems you have not been keeping up.
http://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DREN-6-Slo-IPv6Summit-2011.pdf
points out several unique problems w/ IPv6 and in deployments
where
there are
In message 532f60dd.3030...@foobar.org, Nick Hilliard writes:
On 23/03/2014 21:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need to clean
up their act and not that one shouldn't expect to be able to expose
a printer to the world. It isn't hard to do this
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:15:27AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 532f60dd.3030...@foobar.org, Nick Hilliard writes:
On 23/03/2014 21:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need to clean
up their act and not that one shouldn't expect to be
Not necessarily. Printers generally run unattended, printers generally are not
rebooted periodically for updates (assuring malware can continue to run),
printers generally are not updated even periodically, printers generally have
almost no logging that could be reviewed, printers are generally
On Mar 23, 2014 4:45 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
Also, neighbor discovery, for example, can be dangerous (admittedly,
so can ARP spoofing in IPv4). And aside from the spoofable ability of
ND, robust DHCPv6 is needed for enterprises for sheer operational
continuity.
Yes.
On Mar 23, 2014 6:21 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
Says you.
And many others. My comments were actually reiterating what I commonly see
presented today.
On the other hand, there are beaucoup enterprise networks unwilling to
consider to moving to v6 until there are
I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever.
It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue
that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of companies
are facing.
Calling it FUD is completely wrong because it *is* a legitimate
security issue for
On Mar 23, 2014 7:24 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue
that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of companies
are facing.
The original assertion was that there are unaddressed security weaknesses
in
unless by few you simply mean a minority
Which I do.
appropriately mitigating the security risks shows the claim that
there are security weaknesses in IPv6 preventing its adoption is
false.
No. It doesn't. It's not the sole reason, but it's a huge factor to consider.
But there's nothing
In message CAN3um4wnMPW=BQ6ec_=nh-ua50nn3ql9t+nxdo-adnzcjhk...@mail.gmail.com
, Mike Hale writes:
I wasn't aware that calling out FUD was derisive, but whatever.
It's derisive because you completely dismiss a huge security issue
that, given the state of IPv6 adoption, a great majority of
On Mar 23, 2014 7:54 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
unless by few you simply mean a minority
Which I do.
Then that's fine. But there are numerous enterprises in that minority and
it includes some pretty large enterprises. My own enterprise organization
has more than 600 sites,
[]
It seems to me that the only thing that really matters in v6 wars for
enterprise is whether their
content side has a v6 face. Who really cares whether they migrate away
from v4 so long as
they make their outward facing content (eg web, etc) available over v6?
That's really the key.
Mike
then there aren't any inherent security weaknesses preventing its
adoption by enterprises.
You're right. There's not an inherent security weakness in the
protocol. The increased risk is due to the increase in your attack
surface (IMHO).
Your attack surface has already expanded whether or not
On Mar 23, 2014 8:44 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.com wrote:
Your attack surface has already expanded whether or not you deploy IPv6.
Not so. If I don't enable IPv6 on my hosts, the attacker can yammer
away via IPv6 all day long with no result.
I suppose it depends on the size of your
On Mar 23, 2014 8:44 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
It seems to me that the only thing that really matters in v6 wars for
enterprise is whether their
content side has a v6 face. Who really cares whether they migrate away
from v4 so long as
they make their outward facing content (eg
On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Timothy Morizot tmori...@gmail.com wrote:
You'll pardon my skepticism over claims that unspecified security weaknesses
make it impossible to do what we have done and are continuing to
do.
All this unfilterable ICMP makes for interesting times - I've already run
I am not sure I agree with the basic premise here. NAT or Private addressing
does not equal security.
A globally routable address does not necessarily mean globally accessible.
Any enterprise that cares a wit about network security is going to have a
firewall. If you are relying on NAT to
Millions of IPs don't matter in the face of X billions of people, and
XX-XXX billions of devices - and this is just the near term estimate.
(And don't forget utilization efficiency - Millions of IPs is not millions
of customers served.)
Do IPv6.
/TJ
On Mar 22, 2014 3:09 AM, Bryan Socha
Fair point. There are some situations that do need more than most, but
aren't they the ones that should be on ipv6 already???
I know a few are shouldn't I be on ipv6 and that's fair too. I'm
plqnnning some speaking engagements to cover that. Its not blind and
ignoring.
On Mar 22, 2014
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is v4 a commodity and asset? Where
is the
On Mar 22, 2014 2:32 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com wrote:
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com wrote:
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
So two things here, Bryan...
First, there may be those that do not require IPv6 due to size. So what
is YOUR big plan to connect all those on IPv4 to the rest of the IPv6
world that has dropped IPv4 addresses.
Second, as a DO customer, I am now beginning to understand the culture
and
On 03/22/2014 08:47 AM, Robert Webb wrote:
First, there may be those that do not require IPv6 due to size.
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your
network is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision
because at some point in the not-too-distant
On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
some point in the not-too-distant future it will be the dominant network
technology, and you don't
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
every eyeball network created.Why is
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
Hi Justin,
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's far from useless.
Regards,
Bill
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
some point in the
* Nick Hilliard
the level of pain
associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
demonstrably false: For the likes of T-Mobile USA¹ and
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
IPv4 is like the U.S. Penny. It'll be useless long before it goes
away. And right now it's
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 05:54:06 PM Justin M. Streiner
wrote:
Interesting analogy, but it misses the larger point. The
larger point is that the ongoing effort to squeeze more
mileage out of IPv4 will soon [1] outweigh the mileage
we (collectively) get out of it. IMHO, that effort is
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
All of these 'Hail Mary' options for 'saving' IPv4 really are pointless.
IPv4
In such a case, where you are still pushing the case for
IPv4, how do you envisage things will look on your side when
everybody else you want to talk to is either on IPv6, or
frantically getting it turned up? Do you reckon anyone will
have time to help you troubleshoot patchy (for example)
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, William Herrin wrote:
That's what I hear. Interesting thing though: it hasn't happened yet.
IANA ran out of /8's and it didn't happen. The RIRs dropped to
high-conservation mode on their final allocations and it didn't
happen. How could that be?
I never said that things
On 22/03/2014 18:50, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Nick Hilliard
the level of pain
associated with continued deployment of ipv4-only services is still nowhere
near the point that ipv6 can be considered a viable alternative.
This depends on who you're asking; as a blanket statement it's
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
FB, T-mobile and you are all using ipv6-ipv4 protocol translators because
ipv6-only services are not a viable alternative at the moment.
Using IPv6 internally is different from being able to use IPv6 end-to-end.
6-4 translators will be needed to
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't
Le 22/03/2014 23:49, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
On 22/03/2014 19:35, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
CGN also comes with lots of downside that customers are likely to find
unpleasant. For some operators, customer (dis)satisfaction might be the
driver that ultimately forces them to deploy IPv6.
don't
don't believe for a moment that v6 to v4 protocol translation is any less
ugly than CGN.
it can be stateless
randy
On 03/22/2014 10:16 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 22/03/2014 16:29, Doug Barton wrote:
It is a mistake to believe that the only reason to add IPv6 to your network
is size. Adding IPv6 to your network _now_ is the right decision because at
some point in the not-too-distant future it will be the
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 09:57:04 PM John Levine wrote:
We've just barely started to move from the era of free
IPv4 to the one where you have to buy it, and from
everyhing I see, there is vast amounts of space that
will be available once people realize they can get real
money for it.
It will be a long time
before the price of v4 rises high enough to make it
worth the risk of going v6 only.
New ISP's are born everyday.
Some of them will be able to have a Buy an ISP that has
IPv4 or Buy IPv4 space from known brokers line item in
their budget as part of their launch plans.
101 - 195 of 195 matches
Mail list logo
