Really -- just go play with it. I started by setting up a
tunnelbroker.net account at home.
A majority of the packet slapping functionality of routers work just
fine. It's when you get into things like applications, load balancing,
NAT64/DNS64 where things start to get a little buggy. And you'll n
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 03:00:27 -0800, Robert Lusby wrote:
I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new
phrases, words, things to think about etc
You fears will significantly lower after you set up a separate lab and
play with it. With something as simple as a switch you c
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:43:35PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)
>
> Welcome to the life of being a network operator. :)
That's called "carrier grade" these days by all those vendors! :-)
SCNR,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cl
rough all the issues (hopefully with some help - I've seen
people struggle to get IPv6 working on a Windows XP laptop, for
example).
Roland.
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Lyon"
To: "Jack Bates"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:30:5
gt; From: "William Herrin"
> To: "Franck Martin"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org, "Robert Lusby"
> Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:37:31 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>> From: &
In message , Will
iam Herrin writes:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
> > I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surpr=
> ise
> > surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
> >
> > I am however *terrified* of making
On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
>
> If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I
> will
> be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.
> Owe
There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I will
be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
> With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
>> I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surprise
>> surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
>>
>> I am however *terrified* of
On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
>> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to b
Owen DeLong writes:
> Build a test lab and start experimenting. You'll find that for the
> most part, it's just 96 more bits and very little magic.
Unfortunately most people think that IPv6 is dark magic an are deeply
afraid of it. Sadly many of these people cannot be convinced of the
opposite.
William Herrin writes:
> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
> means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
> my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6
nanog@nanog.org, "Robert Lusby"
Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:37:31 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> From: "William Herrin"
>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
>>
On 9 feb 2011, at 19:30, Tony Hain wrote:
> Making the mass change of enabling the servers at the point you expect
> service to work is just asking for support calls...
Do that on june 8 like everyone else. :-)
http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/
On 2/9/2011 12:30 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
You don't have to disable IPv6 on the servers, just don't put a
in dns. The simplest way to move forward is to get the entire path in
place without the key to knowing is there, then for a few test
subjects either provide a different dns response, or d
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Mike Lyon wrote:
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
I think these could be pretty valuable in t
ary, 2011 7:30:55 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
-Mike
On Wed, Feb 9, 20
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> From: "William Herrin"
>> The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
>> compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4.
>> [...] is going to break again. And again. And again.
>
> This is dual stack, my rec
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of
puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of
NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
-Mike
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM,
you have, how to do
> ping, debug, packet capture,...
>
> For the firewall, shorewall does IPv4 and IPv6, with a relatively
> simple interface and is free...
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> To: "Robert Lusby"
> Cc: nanog@nanog
On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps
compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This
means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break
my apps that are used to not having and therefore no
-
From: "William Herrin"
To: "Robert Lusby"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, 10 February, 2011 7:03:01 AM
Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
> I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, s
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
> I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surprise
> surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
>
> I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new phrases,
> words, th
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Robert Lusby wrote:
> As part of my role, I'm responsible, for a small (20 - 25 machine) network
> in the UK.
>
> When it comes to IPv6 I'm a complete noob. So ok - this is how I stand for
> IPv6:
>
> I "get" IPv4, I get NAT, I get why it's needed, and I get why it's
As part of my role, I'm responsible, for a small (20 - 25 machine) network
in the UK.
When it comes to IPv6 I'm a complete noob. So ok - this is how I stand for
IPv6:
I "get" IPv4, I get NAT, I get why it's needed, and I get why it's evil.
I know my IPv4 network inside and out, how DHCP runs and
25 matches
Mail list logo
