On 7/9/15, 11:04 AM, NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of m...@beckman.org 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
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
nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of m...@beckman.org wrote:
I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is allowed
for in the future but not configured in the
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. airport
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.
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
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
a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I've done fairly extensive testing, and IPv6 support, while
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
Right. FCC. Sorry
-mel beckman
On Jul 13, 2015, at 10:53 AM, mikea mi...@mikea.ath.cx 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
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
2 mbit is still more than 32 bit ;)
alan
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 a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
2 mbit is still more than 32 bit ;)
alan
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
ja...@puck.nether.netmailto:ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:48:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
You perhaps
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.
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
acceptance
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,
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
On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:34 , Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org 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
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.
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 na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On
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
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org 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
In message cal9jlaba5no6yq99crhdgrthtsb0vgp3gdneu-vu2-4r_1_...@mail.gmail.com
, Christopher Morrow writes:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
I working on a large airport WiFi deployment right now. IPv6 is allowed =
for in the future but not configured in the
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 ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
cal9jlaba5no6yq99crhdgrthtsb0vgp3gdneu-vu2-4r_1_...@mail.gmail.com
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
In message a24f7cf2-0cd8-4eba-a211-07bc36988...@beckman.org, 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
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.
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
to see a
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 or
1.1.1.1 is usually a good bet
On Jul 10, 2015 6:21 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org 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
In message da95983c-71f1-4aa6-b431-2f2ffd515...@beckman.org, 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
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 the
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 m...@beckman.org wrote:
I working on a large
On Jul 9, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net 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?
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 opened either
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
On
On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org 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
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+ hotels in Canada and the topic of IPv6 for guest
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
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
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
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Ca By wrote:
On Thursday, July 9, 2015, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org 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
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
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 c...@tzi.org wrote:
Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
It's not their job to even
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 a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
No. They should just ask, with the best geek intonation, whether this
place
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
45 matches
Mail list logo