On 11/1/10 9:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
Hi, almost everytime I open my laptop it gets a different ip address,
sometimes I'm home and it gets that same
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT
On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 04:14:51 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
I've had a recent experience of this. Some IPv6 CPE I was
testing had a fault where it dropped out and recovered every 2 minutes
- a transient network fault. I was watching a youtube video over IPv6.
Because
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 09:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that home
CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream connectivity is
lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very
massive snip
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most do.
However, the long timeouts in the connection attempt process make
that a less than ideal solution. (In fact, this is one of the main =
In message 2ce5a700-eb60-453f-85cf-5e679e94e...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
massive snip
=20
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most do.
=20
However, the long timeouts in the connection
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
used with PA.
not everyone's network requires 'routed' ... wrt the internet.
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 2ce5a700-eb60-453f-85cf-5e679e94e...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
massive snip
=20
Actually, gethostbyname returns a linked-list and applications should
try everything in the list until successfully connecting. Most do.
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
used with PA.
It's very easy to get PIv6 routed
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
they're near unique, instead of having the overhead of a central
registry, and a global
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that
home CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream
connectivity is lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very
short lifetimes until upstream connectivity returns.
Yep, that's the hack I was getting at.
As a
On 11/02/2010 01:26 PM, Tim Franklin wrote:
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that
home CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream
connectivity is lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very
short lifetimes until upstream connectivity returns.
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:51:44 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Your home gateway that talks to your internet connection can either
get it via DHCP-PD or static configuration. Either way, it could
(should?) be set up to hold the prefix until it gets told something
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:23 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
Prefix lifetimes don't work that way - there is no such thing as a
flash renumbering.
The lifetimes are reset with every RA the nodes see. If I reconfigure my
router to start sending out RAs every N seconds, it will take a a
maximum of N
On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 10:51 +, Tim Franklin wrote:
That breaks the IPv6 spec. Preferred and valid lifetimes are there
for a reason.
And end-users want things to Just Work. The CPE vendor that finds a
hack that lets the LAN carry on working
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
How about algorithmically generating these addresses, so that
they're near unique, instead of having the
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
He'd lose his ASN. What do I win?
-r
On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:25:34 +1100
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 23:23 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
Prefix lifetimes don't work that way - there is no such thing as a
flash renumbering.
The lifetimes are reset with every RA the nodes see. If I reconfigure my
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 09:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
About the only hack I can see that *might* make sense would be that home
CPE does NOT honour the upstream lifetimes if upstream connectivity is
lost, but instead keeps the prefix alive on very short lifetimes until
upstream connectivity
In message cc14fcd0-1924-425a-8879-0c1fa6ade...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
=20
=20
He may or may not be. I don't think it's such a bad idea.
=20
=20
How about
Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
peers only except /32s and shorter?
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On 01 Nov 2010 10:08, Jason Iannone wrote:
Define long prefix length. Owen has been fairly forceful in his
advocacy of /48s at every site. Is this too long a prefix? Should
peers only except /32s and shorter?
One assumes unpaid peers will accept prefixes up to the maximum length
the RIR
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Surely your not saying we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
that the other options just don't make sense so that all residential
users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
break?
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45
On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to
This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
of end-sites on the
oops, I clipped a little too much from the message before replying...
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
Permanent connectivity to the global IPv6 Internet, while common,
should not be essential to being able to run
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:20:41 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:28 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:32:39 -0400
Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct
Hi,
2) ULA brings with it (as do any options that include multiple
addresses) host-stack complexity and address-selection issues... 'do I
use ULA here or GUA when talking to the remote host?'
There's an app for that (or rather a library routine called
getaddrinfo() and an optional
Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Uh, no... You're misreading it.
Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Karl Auer wrote:
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
the population would consider that prohibitive but I'm guessing that
even
On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 + (GMT)
Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Surely your not saying we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
that the other options just don't make sense so that all residential
users get PI so that if
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 15:26 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Karl Auer wrote:
That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
$1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
the population would consider
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
one time? truely one time? no other fees or strings?
randy
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees. The $100/year I was already paying for my other resources
covers it,
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
Regards,
-drc
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:03 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Interesting... I guess controlling your own internet fate hasn't been a
priority for the companies where you've worked. Not one of my clients
or the companies I have worked for has even given a second thought
to approving the cost of
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Nathan
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Currently, most
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:21:41 PDT, George Bonser said:
With v6, while changing prefixes is easy for some gear, other gear is
not so easy. If you number your entire network in Provider A's space,
you might have more trouble renumbering into Provider B's space because
now you have to change
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 7:22 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:21:41 PDT, George Bonser said:
With v6, while changing prefixes is easy for some gear, other gear is
not so easy. If you number your
On 10/31/2010 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this problem,
either.
And he can justify PI when he first deploys IPv6 with a single provider
under which policy? (Assume he is in the ARIN region and that his IPv4
space is currently
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/31/2010 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you have PI space, changing providers can be even easier and you can
leave
multiple providers running in parallel.
That's a big IF, given the above. He doesn't qualify for
On Oct 31, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 10/31/2010 9:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you have PI space, changing providers can be even easier and you can
leave
multiple providers running in parallel.
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
happened...
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this
problem, either.
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Would it help if ARIN's policies were changed to allow anyone and everyone
to obtain PI space directly from them (for the appropriate fee, of course),
and
then it was left up to the operating community to decide whether or not to
route the
Seems to me the options are:
1) PI, resulting in no renumbering costs, but RIR costs and routing
table bloat
2) PA w/o ULA, resulting in full site renumbering cost, no routing
table bloat
3) PA w/ ULA, resulting in externally visible-only renumbering cost,
no
routing table bloat
In
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
nothing permanent.
I have a few candidate networks for it. Mostly networks used for
clustering or database access where they are just a flat LAN with no
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
happened...
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this
problem,
why not just use link-local then? eventually you'll have to connect
that network with another one, chances of overlap (if the systems
support real revenue) are likely too high to want to pay the
renumbering costs, so even link-local isn't a 100% win :(
globally-unique is really the best
In message aanlktimsb6uj-jpoglg08q-rzdub-+c9c5kmzcktq...@mail.gmail.com, Chri
stopher Morrow writes:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:01 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
nothing permanent.
I have a few candidate
On Oct 31, 2010, at 12:12 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Would it help if ARIN's policies were changed to allow anyone and everyone
to obtain PI space directly from them (for the appropriate fee, of course),
and
then it was left up to the operating
On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4bc01459-b53a-4b2c-b75b-47d89550d...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen =
DeLong write
s:
=20
Which is
What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made
it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be
re-assembled
into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48
identified
a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that
ship
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
a
On Oct 24, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like
On 10/24/2010 5:05 AM, George Bonser wrote:
And speaking of changing MTU, is there any reason why private exchanges
shouldn't support jumbo frames? Is there any reason nowadays that things
that are ethernet end to end can't be MTU 9000 instead of 1500? It
certainly would improve performance
In a message written on Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:09:28AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
variety of tags/tunnels/etc by the time it gets to the cell phone. It
cracks me up that SONET interfaces default 4470, and ethernet still
defaults to 1500. I've yet to see an MTU option in standard circuit
I've had pretty good luck asking for higher MTU's on both customer and
peering links. I'd say about an 80% success rate for dedicated
GigE's.
It's generally not on the forms though, and sometimes you get what I
consider weird responses. For instance I know several providers who
won't
Coming across Phil Dykstra's paper from 1999 is what got me thinking
about it (well, that and moving a lot of data between Europe and the
West coast of the US).
http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/jumbo.html
http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/
Found more good information here:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 21,
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really,
On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are created
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
is make it work like IPv4.
I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig
Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the
network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it,
or
/80 - /96 for the rest of us)
Why do you feel it's a poor decision to assign /64's to individual LANs?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
is make it
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
The design of IPv6 is that DHCPv6 and RA work together. This is why
there is no method to express the default gateway using DHCPv6, that
task is handled by the RA. I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet
to give hosts addresses but never give them a default gateway, but
that would be a little
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix.
you can tell if you're
In a message written on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:25:18PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
There isn't a method to specify a default gateway in DHCPv6. Some
people want it, however it seems a bit pointless to me if you're going
to have RAs announcing M/O bits anyway - you may as well use those RAs
to
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
feater told the rest of the group He's an operator and thus doesn't
understand how any of this works, ignore
On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole
It's amazing how much of a problem you think leaking of prefixes is...
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty strict about what prefixes I
allow to be advertised up to me from people we service.
I'm not sure having a random private prefix will make much of a
difference, since it sounds like
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 10/22/2010 8:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Unfortunately the folks in the IETF don't even want to listen, to the
point a working group chair when I tried to explain why I wanted such a
feater told the rest of the group
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:08 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:55 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:08 +1100
Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 21:05 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 03:48 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
An RA is single, periodic, in the order of 100s of seconds, multicast
packet. If you're arguing against the cost of that, then I think you're
being a bit too precious with your packets.
Just to be clear on this: I was taking issue solely
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all routers
are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really, since you
have to use high for everything in any reasonable deployment...)
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
That same customer is also
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses from
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes
this is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
IMHO, no.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke gra...@apolix.co.za wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za, Graham Beneke writes:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes th
is is used
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that much address space nobody
really cares).
People may
On 2010-10-21 13:33, Ray Soucy wrote:
[..]
People may throw a fit at this, but as far as I'm concerned FD00::/8
will never leave the edge of our network (we null route ULA space
before it can leak out, just like you would with RFC1918 space). So
you can pretty much use it has you see fit. If
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
doesn't exist in IPv6. There is no IPv6 NAT (yet).
If you
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be asking an authority
for FC00::/8 space to be assigned. But then why wouldn't you just ask
for a GUA at that point.
I guess my point is that as soon as you introduced the human element
into ULA with no accountability, it became a lost cause. People can't
be trusted to respect the RFC once they know it's non-routed address
space, and I suspect most won't. Just like countless vendors still
use 1.1.1.1 as a
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
in a year ago.
Perception is a powerful thing. And Joe IT guy at Mom and Pop dot com
(who's network experience involves setting up a Linksys at home) loves
his magical NAT box firewall appliance. Over the last year I've been
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be asking an authority
for FC00::/8 space to be
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic change! ;) ]
On 2010-10-21 18:29, Allen Smith wrote:
[... well described situation about having two/multiple IPv4 upstreams,
enabling dual-stack at both, but wanting to failover between them
without doing NATv6 ...]
Short answer: you
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve, especially when these services are
managed by other parties.
And probably the
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
