: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:17 PM
To: John R. Levine; George Herbert
Cc: Tomas L. Byrnes; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
My customer the Dark Matter local galaxy group beg to disagree; just
because you cannot see them does
On Sat, 2012-09-29 at 16:53 +1000, Jason Leschnik wrote:
To address everything in the Universe wouldn't you then get stuck in
some kinda of loop of having to address the matter that is used by the
addresses... i.e. to address everything in the Universe you need more
matter than the Universe?
...@psg.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign
IP addresses to objects smaller than
Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign
IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom.
we assign them /64s
[mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign
IP addresses to objects smaller than
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project
that would connect universities, research institutions and some military
installations.
In that context, 32 bits would still be humongous.
Our estimation
Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us writes:
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking.
There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who
observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no
On Sep 17, 2012, at 23:35 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
We thought 32 bits was humongous in the context of a research project
that would connect universities, research institutions and some military
installations.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
What do I mean when I say it must support IPv6? I mean two things.
First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under
IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better
On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
What do I mean when I say it must support IPv6? I mean two things.
First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
We've been doing this for years on both Juniper IOS/IOS-XR devices.
Must be someone else.
I may be wrong, but IOS-XR on A9K only supported v6 on bundle-ether
interfaces as of 4.1.2-ish.
That, of course, leads to
It was supported before there. We were using it prior to that release. You
needed a smu though. I can perhaps find details if they are that important for
you.
Jared Mauch
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Steve Meuse sme...@mara.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jared Mauch
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said:
Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for
convenience within our 6RD network.
Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits. Film at 11.
pgpvFDJ2NdnzN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 09/18/2012 08:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
We've been doing this for years on both Juniper IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be
someone else.
We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be
challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't
Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head
math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this
concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area.
The point here is that breaking out the math based on the surface
H
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis davis.bee...@integratelecom.com
wrote:
Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick
head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this
concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat
On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis wrote:
Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick head
math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this
concentration of addresses, if you reduce them down to flat earth surface area.
The point here is
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about
IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices
on the moon or at other locations in space.
Jason
On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking about
IPv6 in the long-term, I think we have to assume we'll have networked devices
on the moon or at
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If we're talking
about IPv6 in the long-term, I
On 9/18/2012 12:07 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
On 9/18/2012 11:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
What about network-based objects outside of our orbit? If
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
...waste of NANOG list bandwidth.
I sure get a chuckle when I read this on a list for people that swing
around 10Gb/s pipes all day.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
...waste of NANOG list bandwidth.
I sure get a chuckle when I read this on a list for people that swing around
10Gb/s pipes all day.
That's why I included a word you
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:57:34AM -0500, Jason Baugher wrote:
Considering the rather extensive discussion on this list of using
quantum entanglement as a possible future communications medium that
would nearly eliminate latency, I don't see how my comment is moot or a
waste.
You need
In message 86lig7cvpw@seastrom.com, Robert E. Seastrom writes:
Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us writes:
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking.
There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:35:43 -0400, William Herrin said:
Then we need 32 bits to overlay the customer's IPv4 address for
convenience within our 6RD network.
Well yeah. You blow 32 bits for silly reasons, you run out of bits.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:28 -0400, William Herrin said:
In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html
I complained about mapping the full 32-bits of IPv4 address into an
IPv6 prefix. You responded, You say that like it's somehow a bad
thing, and I'm simply not
In message 34689.1348009...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
wri
tes:
--==_Exmh_1348009609_2143P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:28 -0400, William Herrin said:
In http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-September/018180.html
On Sep 18, 2012, at 09:38 , Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
On 9/18/2012 11:01 AM, Beeman, Davis wrote:
Orbits may not be important to this calculation, but just doing some quick
head math, I believe large skyscrapers could already have close to this
concentration of addresses,
I won't dispute that, but let's look at some of the densest uses of it,
factoring in the vertical aspects
as well...
Let's assume an 88 story sky scraper 1 city block square (based on an average
of 17 city block/mile).
That's 96,465 sq. feet (8,961,918 sq. cm.) total building foot print.
6rd itself isn't inherently silly.
Mapping your customers onto an entire /32 is.
You're much better off taking the size of your largest prefix and
assigning a number of bis for the number of prefixes you have.
For example, if you have /14, /14, /15, /16, /16, /16, /18, /19, /20, /22,
/22, /22,
On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
networks, meaning we could cram it into a
My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their own:
I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I
have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't
dual stack. http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722
Not true but it
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put
the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large it
was, you will still get 667 quadrillion address
With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to
happen in a decade or two?
--srs (htc one x)
On Sep 17, 2012 5:58 PM, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote:
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or
Has said forum guy never heard of a phased implementation? Or would he
rather a big bang cut over, i'm sure that will work swell.
The best way to summarise the feeling for IPv6 was expressed in the Packet
Pushers Podcast and that is Network Administrators and System
Administrators have forgotten
On 17 Sep 2012, at 13:28, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote:
snip
Given that the first 3 bits of a public IPv6 address are always 001, giving
/48 allocations to customers means that service providers will only have
2^(48-3) or 2^45 allocations of /48 to hand out to a population
That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big
hope) that the upper bits are more regulated to stricter standards than
the lower bits. In any system there is room for human error or oversight
that is always going to be a concern, but standards, good practises and
policies
On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote:
My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their
own:
I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I
have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't
dual
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a
utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero
You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the consideration is not how
many hosts you have, but how many subnets you are
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a
utilisation rate of something closely approximating zero
You are thinking in ipv4 mode. In ipv6 mode, the
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional
justification if needed.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Bool [mailto:a...@logic.org.uk]
Sent: 17 September 2012 15:55
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote:
I don't really agree with the IPv6 think concept - but let's put that
aside for now...
The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR
providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:55, Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a
utilisation rate of something closely
On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote:
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put
the in perspective (and a great sample that explained to me how large
it was,
Hi Mike,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins mike.simk...@sungard.com wrote:
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional
justification if needed.
Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here.
32-bits would be a more sensible allocation size to LIRs,
On 9/17/12 8:23 AM, Adrian Bool wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins mike.simk...@sungard.com wrote:
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional
justification if needed.
Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here.
32-bits would be a more
On Sep 16, 2012, at 20:23 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
[ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ]
We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of
addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than
a lot of us might
On Sep 16, 2012, at 16:58 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
techniques from IPv4
Actually, as documented below, the assumption is merely that the waste will be
less than 4095/4096ths of the address space. ;-)
Owen
On Sep 17, 2012, at 06:46 , John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote:
That is a very fair point, however one would hope (and this is a big hope)
that the
On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:55 , Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits are squandered away with a
utilisation rate of something closely
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote:
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:16 , Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:55, Adrian Bool a...@logic.org.uk wrote:
Hi,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 15:02, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 17/09/2012 14:37, Adrian Bool wrote:
It seems a tad unfair that the bottom 80 bits
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2
addresses per square cm?
Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:18 , Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 9/17/2012 5:28 AM, John Mitchell wrote:
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses) to put the in
VMware vSphere on quad processor 1u servers with 768gb of RAM :) that should
yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density.
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6
In message cad6ajgrbgk8fzlz-tpl3ogo4trez917sbvc_d9yhh9m28fn...@mail.gmail.com
, Cameron Byrne writes:
On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote:
My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their
own:
I can dual stack, then I am not out of
In article caarzuotqwgpbw46+xb1ngmcn1yryttpygyymppxpqqug9k6...@mail.gmail.com
you write:
With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to
happen in a decade or two?
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
arithmetic were to change, or if we
John Mitchell wrote:
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
They don't. Instead, they suffer from it.
Remember that the address space is 2^128 (or
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses)
That is one of a major design flaw of IPv6 as a result of failed
On 9/17/2012 4:32 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article caarzuotqwgpbw46+xb1ngmcn1yryttpygyymppxpqqug9k6...@mail.gmail.com
you write:
With current use cases at least, yes. What do we know of what's going to
happen in a decade or two?
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the
I agree with the way you are looking at it. I know it sounds impressive to
talk about hosts, but in ipv6 all that matters is how many subnets do I have
and how clean are my aggregation levels to avoid large wastes of subnets. Host
addressing is not an issue or concern. So to talk about 128
On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:54 , Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2
addresses per square cm?
Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a
:) that should
yield 80-140 VM's per host :) that gets you close on density.
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong
On Sep 17, 2012, at 16:41 , Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
John Mitchell wrote:
I think people forget how humongous the v6 space is...
They don't. Instead, they suffer from it.
I find it quite useful, actually. I would not say I suffer from it at all.
Remember
In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of
arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign
IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom.
we assign them /64s
Owen DeLong wrote:
I also have no more difficulty remembering IPv6 addresses in general
than I had with IPv4. I can generally remember
You have already demonstrated your ability to remember things
wrongly so many times in this ML, your statement is very
convincing.
the prefixes I care about
1:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
What technology are you planning to deploy that will consume more than 2
addresses per square cm?
Easy. Think volume (as in: orbit), and think um^3 for a functional computers ;)
On 9/16/2012 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
our worries on the big guys like
On 9/16/12 10:06 AM, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 9/16/2012 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
if these are the people providing internet access to end
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, John T. Yocum wrote:
Wow... my brain hurts after reading that. The saddest part is, there are
folks with IPv6 allocations that simply refuse to implement dual stack.
Agreed. I'm dual-stacked at work, and things work just fine. The only
gripe I heard when dual-stack was
There are some pretty impressive quotes there to take away ..
We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of
addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than
a lot of us might expect given the Reccomendations for Best
Practice deployment.
If I am
You will always have someone who doesn't understand. But every network operator
should have a sense of responsibility to learn IPv6 and implement dual
stacking. To be honest, in 2004/2005 I decided not to dive into IPv6 heavily
but everyone has a wake up call. All we can do is keep stressing
On 9/16/12 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
our worries on the big guys like
We should support dual stack, as someone may stop supporting
IPv4 in addition to IPv6, because dual stack costs so much. :-)
Masataka Ohta
Let me shed some light here. (Being familiar with both
communities... Nanog and WISP's )
WISP's are a very special breed of folks. There are a few common
attributes that one has to recognize about them.
1. Most WISP's are not Technical Folks. (Most of them are Farmers or
from other
: Re: IPv6 Ignorance
Let me shed some light here. (Being familiar with both
communities... Nanog and WISP's )
WISP's are a very special breed of folks. There are a few common
attributes that one has to recognize about them.
1. Most WISP's are not Technical Folks. (Most of them are Farmers
On 9/16/12, John Mitchell mi...@illuminati.org wrote:
If I am understanding this quote correctly the author is worried IPv6
will run out of addresses so won't make the switch... Granted only 1/8th
of the IPv6 space has been allocated for internet use but that number is
still so mind-boggling
If I am understanding this quote correctly the author is worried IPv6
will run out of addresses so won't make the switch... Granted only 1/8th
of the IPv6 space has been allocated for internet use but that number is
still so mind-boggling _huge_..
I would suggest it's irrational thinking
On 9/16/12, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
techniques from IPv4 to map who's doing
IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
techniques from IPv4 to map who's doing what where don't scale.
Well, in IPv4... NAT
On 9/16/12, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Large networks keep separate reputation for every address in the IPv4
address space based on the traffic they send. You can't do that in IPv6,
That's true, but not an intended system for identifying and reporting abuse,
and the same idea occurs
On Sep 16, 2012 6:58 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
IPv6 has its problems, but running out of addresses is not one of them.
For those of us worried about abuse management, the problem is the
opposite, even the current tiny sliver of addresses is so huge that
techniques from IPv4 to
[ yes, there are a lot of idiots out there. this is not new. but ]
We are totally convinced that the factors that made IPv4 run out of
addresses will remanifest themselves once again and likely sooner than
a lot of us might expect given the Reccomendations for Best
Practice deployment.
On 09/16/2012 08:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy
No we didn't .
Mike
On 9/16/12, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
[snip]
When you consider that IPv6 is a 64-bit address space, that is 64
bits are for addressing subnetworks, the /64 spend for
addressing hosts
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
networks, meaning we could cram it into a /15. So even if we have 10 /48s
at home from
So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to
get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet.
yep. but we dis some wisp hacker for saying so. not cool.
randy
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
So I agree with you that there is still a risk that this is going to
get screwed up, but I don't feel too gloomy yet.
yep. but we dis some wisp hacker for saying so. not cool.
I have to admit I never read the forum text so I don't know exactly what
89 matches
Mail list logo
