Right. FCC. Sorry
-mel beckman
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 10:53 AM, mikea wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 05:34:03AM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> Owen,
>>
>> I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with
>> that term.
>>
>> My understanding of the term "greenfield"
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Mel Beckman wrote:
Of course. The question is, is a highly visible public wifi network the
place to hammer out problems? My customer decided no.
Public Wifi nets almost always have administratively built-in limitations
which may not be apparent at first to the end-users.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 05:34:03AM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Owen,
>
> I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with
> that term.
>
> My understanding of the term "greenfield" WRT wifi is that there are no
> interfering signals to contend with. I don't know of any U.S.
Of course. The question is, is a highly visible public wifi network the place
to hammer out problems? My customer decided no.
-mel beckman
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:54 AM, "a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk"
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>> I've done fairly extensive testing, and IPv6 support, while pretty solid on
Hi,
> I've done fairly extensive testing, and IPv6 support, while pretty solid on
> the carrier side, is still iffy on WiFi. Both iOS and Android have various
> reliability problems with IPv6 and WiFi, mostly related to acquiring a DNS
> address or maintaining a connection while roaming. Combine
I've done fairly extensive testing, and IPv6 support, while pretty solid on the
carrier side, is still iffy on WiFi. Both iOS and Android have various
reliability problems with IPv6 and WiFi, mostly related to acquiring a DNS
address or maintaining a connection while roaming. Combine that with
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:05:32AM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/15, 11:04 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
> wrote:
>
> >I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed
> >for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than
> >10,000 eph
On 7/9/15, 11:04 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman"
wrote:
>I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed
>for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than
>10,000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most
>mobile device
Owen,
Lol. No, I'm a Mac guy. We think different :)
I suppose when an airport is first built, that would be greenfield. But this
airport already has a legacy wifi system that we are replacing, incrementally.
I agree that a case exists for building in IPv6 from the start, but this
deployment a
Yes, but TBH, they are advertised as a darkspace collection project, so Cisco’s
use is actually somewhat helpful to that activity.
It’s unlikely that 1.1.1.0/24 or 1.2.3.0/24 will ever be allocated by APNIC.
Owen
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:47 , Julien Goodwin wrote:
>
> On 11/07/15 08:25, Shane
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:34 , Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with that
> term.
>
> My understanding of the term "greenfield" WRT wifi is that there are no
> interfering signals to contend with. I don't know of any U.S. ai
On 11/07/15 08:25, Shane Ronan wrote:
1.1.1.1 is usually a good bet
Sadly yes, even though it's valid public IP space Cisco still have it
documented as their suggested captive portal address.
Despite it (and 1.2.3.0/24) being advertised by $ORK for years at this
point on behalf of APNIC.
Owen,
I never said it was a greenfield deployment. Someone else tagged it with that
term.
My understanding of the term "greenfield" WRT wifi is that there are no
interfering signals to contend with. I don't know of any U.S. airport that
meets that definition. First you have all the wifi of co
How can it be a large, complex deployment if it’s greenfield.
In that case, you need to acceptance test the IPv4 just as much as IPv6.
The difference is that you don’t have to rerun your acceptance tests 6-months
later when you have to implement IPv6 in a rush because you suddenly learned
that
Jared,
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/525db76369bedd1029d61f47-1200/august-2009.jpg
Perfect!
-mel via cell
On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Jared Mauch
mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net>> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:48:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
You perhaps haven't worked a large g
Mark,
Few acceptance test regimes cover established feature testing. It's just too
expensive. For example, an acceptance test of a firewall installation does not
include validating the DPI implementation. Government and enterprise buyers
rely on certifications, such as ICSA for firewalls, IPv6R
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:48:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> You perhaps haven't worked a large government network deployment before. One
> doesn't activate features not enumerated in the design. Ever. Because they
> won't get and can thus introduce security or reliability covered in
> accepta
You perhaps haven't worked a large government network deployment before. One
doesn't activate features not enumerated in the design. Ever. Because they
won't get and can thus introduce security or reliability covered in acceptance
testing and could introduce security or reliability problems. The
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:08:15PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
> deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you
> realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been
> worth t
In message , Mel Beckman writ
es:
> There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
> deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure
> you realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have
> been worth the cost, which would have bee
1.1.1.1 is usually a good bet
On Jul 10, 2015 6:21 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> In message <20150710215658.gc23...@puck.nether.net>, Jared Mauch writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6
>
> Limited municipal budgets is all I can say.
> IPv6 has a cost, and if they can put it off
> till later then that's often good politics.
IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go
IPv6-only from day one and not pay the IPv4
tax at all.
The cost difference between providing IPv6 +
IPv4 o
In message <20150710215658.gc23...@puck.nether.net>, Jared Mauch writes:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if
> > you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just waiting
> > t
There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure you
realize that IPv6 only is not an option. I agree that it would have been worth
the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the total. Th
In message , Mel Beckman writ
es:
> Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they
> can put it off till later then that's often good politics.
>
> -mel via cell
IPv4 has a cost as well. May as well just go IPv6-only from day one and
not pay the IPv4 tax at all.
The co
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:41:53AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> +1 and you will most probably see about 50% of the traffic being IPv6 if
> you do so. There is lots of IPv6 capable equipment out there just waiting
> to see a RA.
What I noticed when I ran a transparent HTTP proxy at my gate
Limited municipal budgets is all I can say. IPv6 has a cost, and if they can
put it off till later then that's often good politics.
-mel via cell
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message
>
> , Christopher Morrow writes:
>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Be
In message
, Christopher Morrow writes:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed =
> for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than 10,=
> 000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed for
> in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than 10,000
> ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most mobile
> devices and
32 bit connection with a 32 bit address will open up an three-dimensional
portal under the hotel. They all know this and work around it by selecting a
lower connection speed.
On July 10, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Alan Buxey wrote:
2 mbit is still more than 32 bit ;)
alan
2 mbit is still more than 32 bit ;)
alan
Unfortunately, there are still some that would report 2mbit via dsl and
think that was ahead of their competition (and it might be in some
cases...)...
On Jul 9, 2015 5:51 PM, "Alan Buxey" wrote:
>
> >No. They should just ask, with the best >geek intonation, whether "this
> >place still is stuck
>No. They should just ask, with the best >geek intonation, whether "this
>place still is stuck with 32-bit Internet"
I'm sure they'd gladly report that their Internet is 24 mbit and not just 32
bit
;)
alan
Unfortunately, the hotel staff wouldn't be able to answer that question.
But they might give them free internet in exchange and hope the guest
doesn't ask any more questions!
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
> > It's not their job to even know to ask
Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
> It's not their job to even know to ask for a specific
> protocol version in the first place
No. They should just ask, with the best geek intonation, whether "this
place still is stuck with 32-bit Internet".
Grüße, Carsten
Absolutely agree. It's not their job to even know to ask for a specific
protocol version in the first place. Their experience should be as seamless
and consistent as possible at all times.
What we should be be concerned about is that the hospitality industry is so
far behind the game on technology
Just turn IPv6 on when you can.
> We manage 65+ hotels in Canada and the topic of IPv6 for guest internet
> connectivity has never been brought up, except by me. It's not a discussion
> our
> vendors or the hotel brands have opened either.
I would argue customers never asked an IPv4 connection e
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Ca By wrote:
> On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> > I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed
> > for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than
> > 10,000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand
; -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Oliver O'Boyle
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 10:20 AM
> To: Mel Beckman
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6
>
> We manage 65+ hot
On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Mel Beckman wrote:
> I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed
> for in the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than
> 10,000 ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most
> mobile devices and apps co
AM
To: Mel Beckman
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6
We manage 65+ hotels in Canada and the topic of IPv6 for guest internet
connectivity has never been brought up, except by me. It's not a discussion our
vendors or the hotel brands have ope
We manage 65+ hotels in Canada and the topic of IPv6 for guest internet
connectivity has never been brought up, except by me. It's not a discussion
our vendors or the hotel brands have opened either.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> I working on a large airport WiFi deployme
On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> It’s my understanding that many captive portals have trouble with IPv6
> traffic and this is a blocker for places.
>
> I’m wondering what people who deploy captive portals are doing with these
> things?
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wk
I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is "allowed for in
the future" but not configured in the short term. With less than 10,000
ephemeral users, we don't expect users to demand IPv6 until most mobile devices
and apps come ready to use IPv6 by default.
-mel beckman
> O
It’s my understanding that many captive portals have trouble with IPv6 traffic
and this is a blocker for places.
I’m wondering what people who deploy captive portals are doing with these
things?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dhc-capport
seems to be trying to document the method to
45 matches
Mail list logo
