On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:07:47 +0800, Owen DeLong said:
Interesting way of thinking about it. I suspect that rather than pay your
premium prices, the customers you just degraded in order to charge
them more for the service they had will look to your competitors for
better service.
I suspect
On (2010-03-07 08:41 +1100), Mark Andrews wrote:
Not implementing IPv6 will start to lose them business soon as they
won't be able to reach IPv6 only sites. Not quite yet but soon. While
all the services that there customers want to reach are available over
IPv4 they will be fine. Once
On (2010-03-07 14:21 +0800), Owen DeLong wrote:
While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural
areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive
markets will actually still lead to a need for increasing address allocations
and assignments as
On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2010-03-07 14:21 +0800), Owen DeLong wrote:
While it is more complete than many other countries, there are still rural
areas where it is not, and, the relatively high churn rate in competitive
markets will actually still lead to a need for
On 07/03/2010, at 4:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I expect that once we all work out that we can use SP-NAT to turn dynamic
IPv4 addresses into shared dynamic IPv4 addresses, we'll have enough
spare IPv4 addresses for much of the foreseeable future.
Ew... The more I hear people say this,
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping.
NAT64 allows multiplexing.
I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing
in a stateless environment at APNIC 29.
Owen (who
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
toward dual-stack ;)
Nice.
Steve
On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
On 06/03/10 23:36 +1030, Mark Newton wrote:
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
list has already examined how polluted the remaining free IPv4 blocks
are ... and as others have pointed
In message 20100306184958.ga17...@mx.ytti.net, Saku Ytti writes:
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
list has already examined how
On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
On 06/03/2010, at 1:10 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent
On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2010-03-06 10:07 -0800), Cameron Byrne wrote:
Folks are risking their business and their customers if they don't
have an IPv6 plan, and when i say IPv6 plan i mean IPv6-only. This
list has already examined how polluted the remaining free
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:43PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.04 20:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
I proffer that
such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your
networks.
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:39 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:43PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.04 20:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
I proffer that
such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6 dual stack on your
networks.
I *wholeheartedly*
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
I *wholeheartedly* agree with Owen's assessment. Even spending time
trying to calculate a rebuttal to his numbers is better spent moving
toward dual-stack ;)
Nice.
Steve
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:40:19AM -0600, Dan White wrote:
On 05/03/10 12:39 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
I would expect the number of v6
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
if you expect to dual-stack everything - you need to look again.
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:21:53PM +, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:39:19PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
er... what part of dual-stack didn't you understand?
dual-stack consumes exactly the same number of v4 and v6 addresses.
if you
If I can try to re-rail the train of this discussion a bit...
1. Yes, dual-stacking may require as many IPv4 addresses as IPv6
addresses. However, in this case, I was referring to dual-stacking
as meaning adding IPv6 capabilities to your existing IPv4 hosts and
there is a real danger here ... wholesale adoption of a
translation technology, esp one that is integrated into
the network kind of ensures that it will never get pulled out -
or that the enduser will have a devil of a time routing around
it when it no longer
IVI is stateless, which means it requires 1 to 1 IPv4 to IPv6 mapping.
NAT64 allows multiplexing.
I didn't fully understand it, but, Ma Yan presented IVI with multiplexing
in a stateless environment at APNIC 29.
Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use)
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:23:59AM +0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Owen (who is very glad these are technologies OTHER people will use)
:) My point was not really to push a particular technology, although
we believe ds-lite is worth looking at or ISC wouldn't have
implemented and released it.
On 3/5/2010 06:38, Cameron Byrne wrote:
There is one of other catch with NAT64 and IPv6-only. It breaks
communications with IPv4 literals. Now, you might says that IPv4
literals in URLs are very seldom well ... have a look at how
Akamai does a lot of their streaming. I just hope it does
24 matches
Mail list logo
