On May 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
[snip]
In his really useful listing of content providers' IPv6
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Ryan Rawdon r...@u13.net wrote:
On May 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
On 23 May 2014, at 3:29 pm, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.au
wrote:
On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from
here either, but
On 5/22/14 9:41 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
My job isn't to increase v6. It's to make sure we can serve traffic over
protocols we are asked to. We are dual stacked which means our customers
are.
I'm not going to tell you what your job is.
I'm curious, though, whether your
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would
IPv6 enable their services. Same for pintarest.
+1
We
On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
I remind vendors when I talk to them, IPv6 first, then IP classic(tm).
Coke Classic managed to outlast NewCoke... pattern repeating?
Don't even joke about that, I can't handle another decade of NAT.
--
Josh
On 5/22/14, 8:55 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
wrote:
I remind vendors when I talk to them, IPv6 first, then IP
classic(tm).
On 22May2014Thursday, at 5:55, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
I remind vendors when I talk to them, IPv6 first, then IP classic(tm).
Coke Classic managed to outlast NewCoke... pattern repeating?
On 14-05-22 08:55 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Coke Classic managed to outlast NewCoke... pattern repeating?
Coke Classic changed as well.
NAT44: the high-fructose corn syrup of IPv4.
M.
--
Michael Brown| The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour
Systems Administrator|
As others have said, Google's abuse systems are smart enough to understand
NAT and proxies, and won't block on request volume alone. When we
automatically apply a block, we'll generally offer a captcha to give
innocent users a workaround and limit the annoyance until the abuse stops
and the block
On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up significantly if
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Derek Andrew derek.and...@usask.ca wrote:
As others have said, Google's abuse systems are smart enough to understand
NAT and proxies, and won't block on request volume alone. When we
automatically apply a block, we'll generally offer a captcha to give
innocent
Once upon a time, Royce Williams ro...@techsolvency.com said:
I've triggered Google's CAPTCHA multiple times at home, just from
rapidly adding and removing search terms, in a couple of different
tabs, after driving down a hundred results or so.
I tend to look up docs and such from a screen
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com javascript:; wrote:
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net javascript:;
wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By
On May 22, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 22, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
Jared,
Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know best.
Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
Making new customers dual-stack by default for the last two years would
have gone far in increasing IPv6, unless Akamai is only losing
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
Jared,
Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know
best.
Isn't your network still offering both as customer choices? :-)
Making new customers dual-stack by default for the last two years
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Rubens Kuhl
rube...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rube...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Jared,
Akamai has been v6 enabled for years. Customers have choices and know
best.
Isn't your
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 5/22/14 8:04 AM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
On 5/21/14, 9:38 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Verizon Wireless
On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from here
either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with TTL=1. At some point
folks have to fix what's broken.
1.1.1.1 is not private IP space.
BGP routing table entry for
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On 23/05/14 11:21, Jared Mauch wrote:
You can't cater to everyones broken network. I can't reach 1.1.1.1 from
here either, but sometimes when I travel I can, even with TTL=1. At some
point folks have to fix
On May 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Pui Edylie em...@edylie.net wrote:
Hi Everyone,
May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our Natted
IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.
Is there any official channel from Google which we could work with them for
This works out especially well if you are using VOIP behind said NAT. ;-)
Owen
On May 20, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Kevin Kadow kka...@gmail.com wrote:
If at all possible, consider using a NAT pool instead of translating
all outbound web traffic to a single IP address. When I ran
Tribune's
On May 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Pui Edylie em...@edylie.net wrote:
The absolute best solution is to deploy IPv6 and deprecate NAT. If you're
looking for an IPv4-only solution, I don't have a good answer for you.
Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every home
user has...
On 5/21/2014 4:21 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
Deploy v6... yes its very easy ...
The system is fully automated, and if you carefully follow instructions,
life will be wonderful and nothing can possibly go wronclickand
nothing can possibly go wronclickand nothing can possibly go
wronclickand
On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, Tony Wicks said:
Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every home
user has... really ? come on, back in the real world that is just not going
to happen until by default every CPE device has the capability as default.
Dual stack
On May 21, 2014 4:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, Tony Wicks said:
Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every
home
user has... really ? come on, back in the real world that is just not
going
to happen until by default
On May 21, 2014 4:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 21, 2014 4:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:21:12 +1200, Tony Wicks said:
Deploy v6... yes its very easy to replace every CPE device that every
home
user has... really ? come on, back in the
In message 005701cf753a$97d6e670$c784b350$@wicks.co.nz, Tony Wicks writes:
On May 20, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Pui Edylie em...@edylie.net wrote:
The absolute best solution is to deploy IPv6 and deprecate NAT. If you're
looking for an IPv4-only solution, I don't have a good answer for you.
On May 21, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Verizon Wireless is at 50% ipv6 penetration
I suspect this would go up significantly if Twitter and Instagram would IPv6
enable their services. Same for pintarest.
Other folks like bit.ly have briefly toyed with IPv6, and with the
Hi Everyone,
May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
Natted IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.
Is there any official channel from Google which we could work with them
for resolution?
Thanks much!
Best,
Edy
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:21:43PM +0800, Pui Edylie wrote:
May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
Natted IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.
IPv6?
On 20 May 2014 10:27, William Waites w...@styx.org wrote:
IPv6?
Might help if all your hosts have their own IPv6 addresses - doesn't help
if you run an http proxy. Google blacklists my (personal) IPv6 proxy at
least once a month.
--
Harald
They take out our campus, both IPv4 and IPv6.
All hailing attempts fail.
Good luck.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Pui Edylie em...@edylie.net wrote:
Hi Everyone,
May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
Natted IP from time to time as it suspect it as a
Their determination is based on the type of search traffic more than the
volume. I had some success using squid to proxy through to them and reduce the
overall number of complex queries.
On May 20, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Derek Andrew derek.and...@usask.ca wrote:
They take out our campus, both
If at all possible, consider using a NAT pool instead of translating
all outbound web traffic to a single IP address. When I ran
Tribune's network (with about 15K internal client IPs), we were
blacklisted by Google several times due to high query volumes. In the
end I built a pair of /24 NAT
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:35:56AM -0400, Harald Koch wrote:
Might help if all your hosts have their own IPv6 addresses
That was meant to be implied... But...
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 09:10:56AM -0600, Derek Andrew wrote:
They take out our campus, both IPv4 and IPv6.
That's interesting, I
Some of the networks I work with do the everything behind NAT thing and
get bitten by this. Using a pool of addresses helps but... This is only
going to get more painful with more people doing Carrier Grade
NAT...
I Run CGN with tens of thousands of broadband users being translated behind
/24
Deploy IPv6. This is the solution to this problem. Google supports
IPv6 on all their services AFAIK.
Mark
In message 537b64f7.5020...@edylie.net, Pui Edylie writes:
Hi Everyone,
May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our
Natted IP from time to time as it
40 matches
Mail list logo
