Re: How long is your rack?
On 08/16/2011 02:33 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > > How do you guys find time for all this? I live in a smallish apartment that doesn't require much cleaning and have a room mate who handles all the errands/logistics in exchange for free rent and access to my awesome lab. Been doing this for a few years now. Works very well and beats having kids. LOL. > then I got married, I did a ton more stuff, acquired more gear when I got married. Before I was married I travelled non stop and had nothing more then my laptop and a box at my parents house as my "cloud". Once I settled down, I begin to acquire gear. > had three kids This will kill off productivity time for sure. Until you have enough of them that are old enough to support site operations. But bootstrapping that is difficult. > and started a Theology PhD program.. I've avoided school. However I'm constantly learning. So I work full time and do about 4 hours a day of hacking. Weekends I do no hacking. This works well for me. > Now anything I do at home is purely practical. The things I've been doing are practical. I haven't touched the lab rack yet. That's next months project. > I took on some ideas for backup though, so I am sorting out a backblaze > account and using Randy's fantastic sync thing that he mentioned. I really do > not want 18 months of research to vanish. Indeed. -- Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter http://blog.knownelement.com Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving platform for tomorrows alternate default free zone.
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/14/2011 17:43, Tim Wilde wrote: > On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world > maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement > above is, in fact, true? Someone else has already pointed out the relationship of IPv6 now to IPv4 20 years ago, but at the risk of flogging the horse what I get from this is that what we're suffering from is a lack of operational experience, combined with the fact that a significant percentage of the early adopters have at least one toe in the "zealot" pool. :) It's also worth pointing out that even today in IPv4 TI(still)MTOWTDI. Witness the recent IS-IS vs. OSPF thread; or any of the other recurring IPv4-only topics. If you think about it, this is a feature. If there was only one right answer the world-wide market for network engineers would be a lot smaller than it is now. Doug - -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOStUcAAoJEFzGhvEaGryExSoH/2kPPpcR7zTi+HsyYsZ5xbIP 8G3g5/rfi8WAbhNjEzOY+vr+5vQwC02KNxgNdpmemrXEahgq9Na8I8rxT7+GjjUw atZx7Fx6k3uvmdubWOCRn0G0CQ36eq7QHEt4jS2SkzDzC0TF7aWiw8MNxd6FbLv3 Bb7zs/eKut9uO32W+TpWMv2AbN46G6Xjt3lWzWwTzWSuM3MK8FaMR52ZyssLJxnG LfyLGDRUgER2Q7uNvxIeqaGsX87qtpM2SZb7c0kVfxqUnM7vSLcvSHOpuI2R39AJ BkBS+ViDbg30tdhNtC03Brmk6uHBEhLf+aH+1+4b2i3GfS1iG0nNHJP2Lf4Ud5M= =9PGM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: How long is your rack?
> -Original Message- > From: Greg Ihnen [mailto:os10ru...@gmail.com] > Sent: 16 August 2011 11:57 > To: Leigh Porter > Cc: Bryan Irvine; Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX); nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: How long is your rack? > > > On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:03 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Bryan Irvine [mailto:sparcta...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 15 August 2011 17:42 > >> To: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) > >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: How long is your rack? > >> > >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) > >> wrote: > >>> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance > >>> of this ... > >>> > >>> Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway > >>> Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed > >>> Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box > >>> Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host > >>> AMDx4Random OS workstation crash box > >>> Epia-EK Plan 9 terminal > >>> MacBook xSnow Leopard build/test host > >>> Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host > >>> Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server > >>> Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server > >>> Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box > >>> Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests > >>> Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal > >>> kernal testing. > >> > >> OK, you've piqued my interest. What use have you found for Plan 9? > >> > > > > How do you guys find time for all this? I used to have a couple of > racks of boxes in the basement, then I got married, had three kids and > started a Theology PhD program.. Now anything I do at home is purely > practical. > > > > I took on some ideas for backup though, so I am sorting out a > backblaze account and using Randy's fantastic sync thing that he > mentioned. I really do not want 18 months of research to vanish. > > > > > > -- > > Leigh Porter > > > > One thing about Backblaze is they don't have redundant sites. They have > only one facility so if a giant meteor takes it out your data is gone. > Amazon's S3 is the way to go for data that matters. > > > Greg I actually used S3 for a while and it was pretty good. I just need a single off-site backup dump. What do people use to automatically sync windows/mac/Linux desktops to something? I am using sugarsync at the moment, I would rather do something myself to sync say whenever I connect to my home network to a home server. -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: How long is your rack?
On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:03 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bryan Irvine [mailto:sparcta...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 15 August 2011 17:42 >> To: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: How long is your rack? >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) >> wrote: >>> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance >>> of this ... >>> >>> Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway >>> Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed >>> Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box >>> Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host >>> AMDx4Random OS workstation crash box >>> Epia-EK Plan 9 terminal >>> MacBook xSnow Leopard build/test host >>> Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host >>> Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server >>> Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server >>> Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box >>> Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests >>> Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal >>> kernal testing. >> >> OK, you've piqued my interest. What use have you found for Plan 9? >> > > How do you guys find time for all this? I used to have a couple of racks of > boxes in the basement, then I got married, had three kids and started a > Theology PhD program.. Now anything I do at home is purely practical. > > I took on some ideas for backup though, so I am sorting out a backblaze > account and using Randy's fantastic sync thing that he mentioned. I really do > not want 18 months of research to vanish. > > > -- > Leigh Porter > One thing about Backblaze is they don't have redundant sites. They have only one facility so if a giant meteor takes it out your data is gone. Amazon's S3 is the way to go for data that matters. Greg
RE: How long is your rack?
> -Original Message- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] > Sent: 16 August 2011 08:37 > To: Leigh Porter > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: Re: How long is your rack? > > > I really do not want 18 months of research to vanish. > > a fool and his data are soon parted > -- monty williams, a co-worker about 1990 > Quite. I do have on-site backups BTW.. But hey, we had riots just down the road from me last week and a few places were burnt out. -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: How long is your rack?
> I really do not want 18 months of research to vanish. a fool and his data are soon parted -- monty williams, a co-worker about 1990
RE: How long is your rack?
> -Original Message- > From: Bryan Irvine [mailto:sparcta...@gmail.com] > Sent: 15 August 2011 17:42 > To: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: How long is your rack? > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) > wrote: > > I hope someone will explain the operational relevance > > of this ... > > > > Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway > > Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed > > Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box > > Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host > > AMDx4 Random OS workstation crash box > > Epia-EK Plan 9 terminal > > MacBook x Snow Leopard build/test host > > Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host > > Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server > > Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server > > Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box > > Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests > > Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal > > kernal testing. > > OK, you've piqued my interest. What use have you found for Plan 9? > How do you guys find time for all this? I used to have a couple of racks of boxes in the basement, then I got married, had three kids and started a Theology PhD program.. Now anything I do at home is purely practical. I took on some ideas for backup though, so I am sorting out a backblaze account and using Randy's fantastic sync thing that he mentioned. I really do not want 18 months of research to vanish. -- Leigh Porter __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: How long is your rack?
--- ra...@psg.com wrote: From: Randy Bush > I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered > via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe > I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that. : more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me. Sometimes they're fun to 'wget' and run through 'strings'. Look for nanog.exe... ;-) scott
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
On Aug 15, 2011 2:15 PM, "Tim Wilde" wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4? > > > > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard. > > I will admit to not having run the numbers and trying to compare IPv4 > protocol-specific discussion threads vs. IPv6, but it certainly "feels" > like there are more. My feeling is also that the IPv6 discussions are > much more fundamental, in that they're discussing basic deployment > strategies, etc. But it could all be selection bias because it's > prominent in the collective mindset, I'll grant you that. > Yes, selection bias. There are some people who like to talk about basic things, state their opinions as facts, and email a lot. I keep trying to come up with a religion analogy, but none are just quite right. Did Copernicus hang around at the Vatican to talk about Heliocentrism ? Cb > > Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is > > 20 years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected. > > Point taken. Anyone have time to try to do a long-term comparative > study of discussions on deployment strategies and things like NAT, DHCP, > etc, for IPv4 vs. IPv6, factoring in the differing levels of overall > Internet adoption at the time of IPv4 adoption vs. IPv6, etc? If so, I > have a few other tasks I'd love to have you do... :) > > As others have said, I guess what it really shows is that nothing ever > really changes, and no one (protocol designers, IETF folks, operators, > router vendors, etc) is perfect, despite our best efforts to be. :) > > Regards, > Tim > > - -- > Tim Wilde, Senior Software Engineer, Team Cymru, Inc. > twi...@cymru.com | +1-630-230-5433 | http://www.team-cymru.org/ > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iEYEARECAAYFAk5JjEYACgkQluRbRini9thaIwCggaprPoquYDvQ3b4Pp53qfe43 > KlAAoIWjjr5ItnWdMcIOW7Fc9rvbPRfw > =M9lE > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
On Aug 15, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Tim Wilde wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4? >> >> I really don't see a significant difference in that regard. > > I will admit to not having run the numbers and trying to compare IPv4 > protocol-specific discussion threads vs. IPv6, but it certainly "feels" > like there are more. My feeling is also that the IPv6 discussions are > much more fundamental, in that they're discussing basic deployment > strategies, etc. But it could all be selection bias because it's > prominent in the collective mindset, I'll grant you that. > I was talking about quality, you're talking quantity. Sure, there are more IPv6 protocol discussions, it's a newer protocol, there are more people left that haven't had all of the same old discussions, haven't gained some experience and come back to the same old discussions with new perspectives, etc. However, the quality of the IPv4 same old discussions vs. the IPv6 same old discussions is roughly the same. It's all about problems or perceived problems that we knew about from very early in the protocol's design life and somehow the protocol works well enough for lots of people to use it in spite of these (seeming from the discussions) overwhelming flaws. As an example, look at how often the NAT != Security / Yes it does. argument still comes up in spite of the fact that it's been pretty clearly established that NAT is actually neutral at best and usually detrimental to security, while it does offer some small privacy advantages. Lately, I'll admit, that argument comes up most often as part of a "but what do we do in IPv6 without NAT? All my windows boxen will be exposed naked to the world?" discussion, but, I'd say that's still an IPv4 discussion, not an IPv6 discussion. Without the damage done to IPv4 by NAT, we wouldn't have people who grew up not understanding how networks are supposed to work and unaware that stateful firewalls can work just as well without NAT as with. >> Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is >> 20 years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected. > > Point taken. Anyone have time to try to do a long-term comparative > study of discussions on deployment strategies and things like NAT, DHCP, > etc, for IPv4 vs. IPv6, factoring in the differing levels of overall > Internet adoption at the time of IPv4 adoption vs. IPv6, etc? If so, I > have a few other tasks I'd love to have you do... :) > I don't think that's a relevant question. At the time of IPv4 adoption, the internet didn't have WWW or HTTP or much in the way of end users. IPv4 was adopted when SMTP and FTP were the primary applications with the occasional telnet. I think at that time, there was almost as much ping and trace route traffic as anything else (ok, not literally, but you get the idea). However, given that 30 years later, the quality of the IPv4 same old discussions is on par with the quality of the IPv6 same old discussions and IPv6 only wins on quantity at the moment because it's new, I'm not sure anyone really needs a study to confirm that. However, if there's a researcher out there with too much time on their hands, go for it. > As others have said, I guess what it really shows is that nothing ever > really changes, and no one (protocol designers, IETF folks, operators, > router vendors, etc) is perfect, despite our best efforts to be. :) > Yep. Owen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: How long is your rack?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:37:37AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote: > >> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond > >> me. > > I'm curious what your objection is. > > i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious > site. also your privacy issue, but that is secondary. Given the rate of publicised defacements of all manner of sites (and that injecting malware into a page is the exact same thing as a clear defacement, from an execution point of view), a long URL gives you no greater assurance of protection from malice. - Matt (Fellow hater of URL-shortening services) -- "I'm sorry they changed it back. The freedom-fries thing was a proclamation to the world that we are indeed ruled by fools and madmen, but it had the virtue of not requiring mass numbers of people to be killed in order to make the point." -- Brad Ferguson
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4? > > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard. I will admit to not having run the numbers and trying to compare IPv4 protocol-specific discussion threads vs. IPv6, but it certainly "feels" like there are more. My feeling is also that the IPv6 discussions are much more fundamental, in that they're discussing basic deployment strategies, etc. But it could all be selection bias because it's prominent in the collective mindset, I'll grant you that. > Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is > 20 years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected. Point taken. Anyone have time to try to do a long-term comparative study of discussions on deployment strategies and things like NAT, DHCP, etc, for IPv4 vs. IPv6, factoring in the differing levels of overall Internet adoption at the time of IPv4 adoption vs. IPv6, etc? If so, I have a few other tasks I'd love to have you do... :) As others have said, I guess what it really shows is that nothing ever really changes, and no one (protocol designers, IETF folks, operators, router vendors, etc) is perfect, despite our best efforts to be. :) Regards, Tim - -- Tim Wilde, Senior Software Engineer, Team Cymru, Inc. twi...@cymru.com | +1-630-230-5433 | http://www.team-cymru.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEARECAAYFAk5JjEYACgkQluRbRini9thaIwCggaprPoquYDvQ3b4Pp53qfe43 KlAAoIWjjr5ItnWdMcIOW7Fc9rvbPRfw =M9lE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: How long is your rack?
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote: > I hope someone will explain the operational relevance > of this ... > > Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway > Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed > Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box > Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host > AMDx4 Random OS workstation crash box > Epia-EK Plan 9 terminal > MacBook x Snow Leopard build/test host > Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host > Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server > Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server > Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box > Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests > Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal > kernal testing. OK, you've piqued my interest. What use have you found for Plan 9? -B
Re: How long is your rack?
On 8/15/2011 8:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote: i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious site. From a practical standpoint, a long URL provides no greater assurance. you really have no idea what you're going to receive when you click on any link. life is nasty. but one still avoids bad neighborhoods. Which incorrectly presumes that the average user can distinguish among Internet neighborhoods. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: How long is your rack?
>> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond >> me. > I'm curious what your objection is. i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious site. also your privacy issue, but that is secondary. > you really have no idea what you're going to receive when you click on > any link. life is nasty. but one still avoids bad neighborhoods. randy
Re: How long is your rack?
On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:12 21AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered >> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe >> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that. > > more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me. > I'm curious what your objection is. Mine is privacy -- the owner of the shortening site gets to see every place you visit using one of those. I don't think there's a significant incremental security risk, because the URL you click on doesn't tell you what you'll receive in any event. Case in point: https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/SMBlog-in-PDF.pdf does *not* yield a PDF. (As far as I know, it's a completely safe URL to click on, but I can't guarantee that someone else didn't hack my site. I, at least, haven't put any nasties there.) Yes, when you avoid shortened URLs you get some assurance of the owner of the content. Given the rate of hacking -- is anyone really safe from a determined amateur attack, let alone state-sponsored nastiness? -- and given the amount of third-party content served up by virtually all ad-containing site, you really have no idea what you're going to receive when you click on any link. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: How long is your rack?
In a message written on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote: > more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me. http://longurl.org/ -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpEKbzQacqye.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How long is your rack?
> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered > via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe > I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that. more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me. randy
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
On 08/14/2011 07:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote: > On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: > > > Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently > stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course! > IPv42, here I come! :) It certainly is being debated back and forth quite a bit. With apparent 0 forward progress being made. It's important that we keep our audience in mind. Yes much v6 is being deployed (Owen and his band of merry men being the notable leaders) and various pockets of link layer availability from the big providers. It's time to just do it already. Mark it experimental. Tell people ZOMG you may have to r3numb3r. Why hasn't anyone capitalized on this opportunity yet and rolled out decent CPE with a fat margin. I mean seriously, why not? Just wrap it in some buzzwords (security, gaming, whatever). The vendors already do that at bestbuy. > > On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world > maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement > above is, in fact, true? Well stated. Hopefully folks will chime in with an answer. >or start a flamewar > (well, okay, I am trying to start a flamewar, that's what Sunday nights > are for :)), it's honestly something that puzzles me. It just doesn't > feel right... Yeah. Same here. It's why I dropped off NANOG. I got tired of the constant bickering. Everyone just needs to do what seems right for their network. What I'm curious about, is how many people actually deployed networks following their preferred method? I mean he.net is clear about what it believes is right and has stuck to it for several years now. Know how long it took me to have v6 working on my network? 10 minutes. Just pfsense and an he.net tunnel. radvd and done. Instant v6 LAN wide. v6.facebook/netflix/google all works. My linux boxes hit v6 mirrors automatically. Sourceforge download via v6. Easy. Boring. Current working theory: If you have other (sane,expected,normal) mitigation techniques in place on your network, dealing with any (perceived?) v6 security issues should be easy I think. I haven't labbed this all up yet. But I will. Soon. Q3 is all about security for me. Expect to see some posts about operationally focused security research in Q3. Because I want to prove/disprove all the things I see flying around. I've got the gear, I've got the time. It's time for the rubber to hit the road. I seem to recall a thread asking v6 status and a bunch of people responding with AS numbers and prefixes. Hopefully that list keeps growing. That's on the provider side of course. Is anyone here not deploying a v6 network, so that someone else doesn't do it for you (which again, it's my feeling that a well engineered "enterprise" LAN wouldn't be susceptible to a lot of the attacks). My memory is a bit fuzzy about all the details. I'll solicit requests for tests in a while, once my current projects are wrapped up. What about all the other folks out there? Who pushed whatever blasted prefix size, or moaned about neighbor table overflows, or about NAT vs FW or whatever other inane nonsense. I WANT MY LINK LAYER NATIVE V6! AND I WANT IT NOW! > > Regards, > Tim > -- Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter http://blog.knownelement.com Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving platform for tomorrows alternate default free zone.
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
On Aug 14, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: >> Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6 >> threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over >> again? :) > > Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently > stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course! > IPv42, here I come! > > On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world > maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement > above is, in fact, true? Not trying to be anti-IPv6 or start a flamewar > (well, okay, I am trying to start a flamewar, that's what Sunday nights > are for :)), it's honestly something that puzzles me. It just doesn't > feel right… > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4? I really don't see a significant difference in that regard. Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is 20 years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected. Owen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: How long is your rack?
On 08/14/2011 05:45 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > I don't know, but 50 people had snarfed the picture I posted within > 30 minutes, a few hundred have by now, and it's the weekend. Yes. Exactly. I'll start my more operational focused threads on Monday. Plus Randy started a personal backups thread. I need to respond to that soon. That's pretty operational. I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that. > Fun. Precisely! -- Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter http://blog.knownelement.com Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving platform for tomorrows alternate default free zone.
Re: IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
On 8/14/2011 2:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6 threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over again? :) Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course! IPv42, here I come! On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement above is, in fact, true? Not trying to be anti-IPv6 or start a flamewar (well, okay, I am trying to start a flamewar, that's what Sunday nights are for :)), it's honestly something that puzzles me. It just doesn't feel right... It doesn't say all that much, just that nothing ever changes in the world. Protocols have never been perfect, and probably never will be. Engineers and Ops have always struggled to make something that suits both worlds. Paul
IPv6 Real World Maturity (was re: How long is your rack?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: > Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6 > threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over > again? :) Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course! IPv42, here I come! On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement above is, in fact, true? Not trying to be anti-IPv6 or start a flamewar (well, okay, I am trying to start a flamewar, that's what Sunday nights are for :)), it's honestly something that puzzles me. It just doesn't feel right... Regards, Tim - -- Tim Wilde, Senior Software Engineer, Team Cymru, Inc. twi...@cymru.com | +1-630-230-5433 | http://www.team-cymru.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEARECAAYFAk5Ia8AACgkQluRbRini9thKyACfZ6H6m0GQRLm6SWCOGZ663j/G 5+kAn0JM74VwRkCeaBhaTRYEY3Hz7oK1 =h5jP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: How long is your rack?
On 08/14/2011 03:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote: > I hope someone will explain the operational relevance > of this ... Small home compute centers/networks need care and feeding as well. I've learned a lot from this thread. Things like common designs/layouts, cooling, POE switches etc. Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6 threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over again? :) > Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway > Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed > Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box > Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host > AMDx4Random OS workstation crash box > Epia-EK Plan 9 terminal > MacBook xSnow Leopard build/test host > Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host > Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server > Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server > Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box > Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests > Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal > kernal testing. Sun is good stuff. I like "crash box". Is that like a scratch system? > Hah -- Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter http://blog.knownelement.com Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving platform for tomorrows alternate default free zone.
Re: How long is your rack?
> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance > of this ... I don't know, but 50 people had snarfed the picture I posted within 30 minutes, a few hundred have by now, and it's the weekend. Fun. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
How long is your rack?
I hope someone will explain the operational relevance of this ... Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host AMDx4Random OS workstation crash box Epia-EK Plan 9 terminal MacBook xSnow Leopard build/test host Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal kernal testing.
