Wait… You’re trying to convince me that it’s easier to understand “You have
this box in the way. It blocks many of the packets you want and some of the
packets you don’t want. It also does weird things to the header in the
process.” than it is to understand “You have this box. By default it
On 7/14/15, 11:16 PM, NANOG on behalf of Randy Bush
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of ra...@psg.com wrote:
While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic
curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator
for
what is happening.
we're an isp,
If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated
their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now.
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
Robert D. Scottrob...@ufl.edu
Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone
UF
I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest!
(just kidding)
Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. rob...@ufl.edu wrote:
If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they allocated
their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool now.
https
IPV4 countdown, they
allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s in the pool
now.
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
Robert D. Scottrob...@ufl.edu
Network Engineer 3 352-273-0113 Phone
UF Information Technology 321-663-0421 Cell
getting rid of the
distraction might help with those still holding out hope.
Tony
Owen
On Jul 14, 2015, at 04:37 , Scott, Robert D. rob...@ufl.edu wrote:
If you have been keeping an eye on the ARIN IPV4 countdown, they
allocated their last /23 yesterday. There are only 400 /24s
Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net writes:
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
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on
the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:33:39 -0400, Curtis Maurand said:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman
to understand their firewall.
Like the layman actually understand what a PS3 means by NAT Type 2
without consulting Google?
pgpeqQ_4S0wzb.pgp
Description: PGP
While the base curve it runs on is running ahead of the measured traffic
curve, the measure of IPv6 enabled browsers is a reasonable indicator for
what is happening.
we're an isp, with ipv6 enabled since 1997. we measure real traffic,
not wishes of what could be.
randy
In message 55a5b873.5010...@xyonet.com, Curtis Maurand writes:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman
to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple.
ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes,
all the
Since IPV6 does not have NAT,
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/ipv6-nat-overview.html,
but perhaps you meant something else.
it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall.
Not really. I suspect a stateful firewall for IPv6 will look
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman
to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple.
ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes,
all the clients get everything automatically except for the router/firewall.
-C
15. Jul 2015 01:33 by cmaur...@xyonet.com:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on
the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
clients get everything
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for
the layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake.
--Curtis
On 7/14/2015 7:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the
distraction might help
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
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.
randy
On Jul 14, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:
Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to
understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the
otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the
On Jul 14, 2015, at 16:09, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:
i think IPV6 adoption is going to be very slow. It's very difficult for the
layman to understand and that contributes to the slow rate of uptake.
Who is the layman in this story? Almost every system I work with at home
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:51:25 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
Are we *still* doing this argument?!?
block all
pass out on $extif keep state
Is it that fucking difficult for people to figure out? Really?
But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :)
pgpRo85NVvJFi.pgp
On Jul 14, 2015, at 7:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :)
SHOUT LOUDER!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
21 matches
Mail list logo
