On Friday 01 June 2007, Vince Fuller wrote:
If you think about it, the NAT approach actually offers the possibility of
improved routing scalability: site multihomed with NATs connected to each
of its providers could use topologically-significant (read PA) global
addresses on the NATs while
Not speaking directly for my employer (in any official capacity
that is), but it's is *not* as easy as as just IPv6 enabling our network,
enabling ipv6 on the servers, and putting up ipv6.yahoo.com. Currently,
the biggest roadblock we have is loadbalancer support (or, more
specificly,
Without naming any vendors, quite a few features that work
with hardware assist/fast path in v4, don't have the same
hardware assist in v6 (or that sheer enabling of ipv6 doesn't
impact v4 performance drasticly).
Also, quite a few features simply are not supported in v6
(not to
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support to at
least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server with v6
support, test, and not worry about it affecting production.
If I read the thread so far
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support to at
least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server with v6
support, test, and not worry about it affecting production.
Actually, for me 100% feature parity (for stuff we use per vip) is a day-1
requirement.
That's obviously your choice. I don't know the first thing about your
application/services/systems but in my case my load balancer has nothing
to do with my application/services- and I would be frightened
If I read the thread so far correctly, Igor can't enable a single server
with v6, because the instant he updates the DNS so an MX for his domain
references a , that will become the preferred target for his domain
from the entire IPv6 world, and he's gonna need a load balancer from Day 0.
On 4/06/2007, at 12:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:35:29 EDT, Donald Stahl said:
That said- your v6 support does not have to match your v4 support
to at
least allow you to begin testing. You could set up a single server
with v6
support, test, and not worry about
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
# traceroute6 www.nanog.org
traceroute6: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
That would be a start... It took years to get the IETF to eat its own
dog
Isn't his point that y! could offer IPv6 e-mail in parallel to the
existing IPv4 service, putting the IPv6 machines in a subdomain
ipv6.yahoo.com, so that end users and networks who want to
do it can
do so without bothering the others?
This doesn't sound at all like a transitional
Larry J. Blunk wrote:
[..]
A v6 server is now up at www.ipv6.nanog.org. As a bonus
incentive, you get to see the Merit mascot (no, it's not a dancing
turtle).Unfortunately, there's some unresolved issues with
the secure registration server, so we can't add an record
for
In the past we've used www6 for v6 only, www4 for v4 only, and
www has both v6 and v4.
Which works fine for you and me, but not for my mother.
Which means it is an excellent suggestion for the transition phase into
an IPv6 Internet. Since that happens to be where we are right now, IPv6
On 30/05/2007, at 8:00 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I can't seem to reach www.ietf.org over IPv6 these days and I have
to wait 10 seconds before I fall back to IPv4.
What browser are you using that falls back? Does it require hints
(ie. unreachables, or similar) or does a timeout in
Donald Stahl wrote:
If ARIN is going to assign /48's, and people are blocking anything
longer than /32- well then that's a problem :)
To be specific, ARIN is currently assigning up to /48 out of
2620::/23.
I noticed that http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
has the following
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[let me whine again about this one more time... *sigh*]
[guilty parties in cc + public ml's so that every body sees again that
this is being sent to you so that you can't deny it... *sigh again*]
Actually appreciated, as the only sessions with 3ffe
I think what's going on is that packets from www.ietf.org don't make it
back to my ISP. A ping6 or traceroute6 doesn't show any ICMP errors and
TCP sessions don't connect so it's not a PMTUD problem. So it's an
actual timeout.
I also just started noticing this, that is, that it does
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:40:00PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move first due to
lack of content
pure bs. most significant backbones are dual stack. you are the
chicken, claiming the sky is falling.
I'd have to say I
I guess we have different definitions for most significant backbones.
Unless you mean they have a dual-stack router running _somewhere_, say, for
instance, at a single IX or a lab LAN or something. Which is not
particularly useful if we are talking about a significant backbone.
Rather than
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:10:02PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If you like DHCP, fine, run DHCP. But I don't like it, so please
don't force _me_ to run it.
OK, I can (and do) live with that.
I tend to prefer technical reasons to choose a technology (and in
so doing, hope to avoid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Jun wrote:
I think what's going on is that packets from www.ietf.org don't make it
back to my ISP. A ping6 or traceroute6 doesn't show any ICMP errors and
TCP sessions don't connect so it's not a PMTUD problem. So it's an
actual timeout.
I
@nanog.org
Asunto: Re: dual-stack [was: NANOG 40 agenda posted]
I guess we have different definitions for most significant backbones.
Unless you mean they have a dual-stack router running _somewhere_, say, for
instance, at a single IX or a lab LAN or something. Which is not
particularly useful
,
Jordi
De: Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
Para: John Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: nanog@nanog.org
Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
At this point, ISP's should make solid plans for supplying
customers with both
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:21, Donald Stahl wrote:
Can anyone think of a
reason that a separate hostname for IPv6 services might
cause problems or otherwise impact normal IPv4 users?
None that I can think of.
In the field, for servers/services we have enabled v6 on, we
have created parallel
Jared Mauch wrote:
Some providers (eg: www.us.ntt.net) have their sales/marketing
path ipv6 enabled. Perhaps this will help self-select customers that are
clued? ;)
Most European/Asian based providers/peers don't even blink when I
mention turning up IPv6. Not so with most US based
On Tue, 29 May 2007, John Curran wrote:
ISP's are going to have to actually *lead* the transition
to IPv6 both in terms of infrastructure and setting
customer expectations.
and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
expending opex/capex to do this transition work.
but ipv6 is more secure, yes? :) (no it is not)
Does the relative security of IVp4 and IPv6 *really* matter on the same Internet
that has Vint Cerf's 140 million pwned machines on it?
was the :) not enough: I'm joking ??
Just askin', ya know?
some people do think that it does... they
We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being
didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the
.
So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive
experience with their transitions.
The biggest complaints so far have
On 29/05/2007, at 1:35 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them IPv4/
IPv6
dual-stack. When that is not the case one can always do minimal
tunnels
inside the AS. Same for getting transit, it doesn't have to be
directly
native, but when getting
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 5/26/07, Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
on things, could cost some money. I'd love to see google or Y! with
an record. Or even Microsoft ;)
i agree 100%, which is why I
On Sun, 27 May 2007, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required.
Indeed. I'd hoped there would be time to finish the multicast project
first. I'll kick off getting BBC content up on v6
The really big problem is that
there is a case that when you do enable 's on your service that
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
I think you also
De: Manolo Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:48:23 -0400
Para: nanog@nanog.org
Asunto: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
So, I think I can sum up your reply
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 05:32:04PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Because for IPv6 to be useful to the masses, content is required.
Indeed. I'd hoped there would be time to finish the multicast project
first. I'll kick off getting BBC content up on v6
The really big problem is that
On 5/26/07, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ snip ]
wow! you missed the one day workshop in the lacnic meeting you just
attended? bummer.
I'm lucky enough to be able to attend RIPE, ARIN, and LACNIC meetings
so that I can get basic information since I can't get that at a NANOG
On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
submit?
Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
migration, transition, and operations issues. No, I'm not volunteering;
On 5/26/07, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:39:19 -0400
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
submit?
Given the ARIN statement, I think it's time for more discussion of v6
migration,
you have something new and interesting about ipv6? if so, did you
submit?
If you are going to stand at microphones at other groups meetings and
take credit for turning on the first v6 network, perhaps you should be
asking yourself this very question?
first, i did not say i turned it on. i
38 matches
Mail list logo
