Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-05 Thread Large Hadron Collider
that would be a throwback, if my MTA supported full-length bangpaths. On 19-12-04 01 h 56, Aled Morris via NANOG wrote: On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: > Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of > their own at all?

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-04 Thread Aled Morris via NANOG
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:43, Randy Bush wrote: > > Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of > > their own at all? > > if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail > servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area. > > randy >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Fernando Gont
On 3/12/19 17:47, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >> On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> >>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said: >> I believe that

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Brandon Martin
On 12/3/19 10:04 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: Wwll, yeah.. you don't need IPv4 addresses if you are going to be using somebody else's networks and services. Not that you should, though OTOH, many many organizations, especially outside of service providers, in fact DO such a thing. I'd

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Fred Baker
> On Dec 3, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said: > >> I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22 >> of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6, > > As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:58:59 -0800, FREDERICK BAKER said: > I think he is saying that companies like Reliance JIO have started with a /22 > of IPv4 and a /32 (or more) of IPv6, As I said - you need IPv4 space to dual-stack. How does Reliance do this without any v4 address space?

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 09:51, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > >> Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with using >> someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell >> nothing. > >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:25 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > Why not use someone else’s IPv4 addresses? Really. What is wrong with > using > someone else’s IPv4 addresses if it achieves the need? As far as I can tell > nothing. Other than the fact that a /24 is being advertised out of one AS

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 02:04, Fernando Gont wrote: > > On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> >>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said: >>> > I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:12:27 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > Email is often out sourced so you don’t need your own IPv4 addresses for > that. > Then there is in the cloud for other services, again you don’t need your > own IPv4 > addresses. Are you seriously trying to say "If you're a new

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Fernando Gont
On 3/12/19 00:12, Mark Andrews wrote: > > >> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: >> >> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said: >> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses for new organizations deploying dual-stack >>>

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-03 Thread Randy Bush
> Why does a new organisation need to have any global IPv4 addresses of > their own at all? if all folk saying such things would make their in- and out-bound mail servers v6-only, it would reduce confusion in this area. randy

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-02 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 3 Dec 2019, at 13:31, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said: > >>> I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses >>> for new >>> organizations deploying dual-stack >> >> I think I understood what you meant, but not

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-02 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:04:24 -0800, Fred Baker said: > > I believe that Dmitry's point is that we will still require IPv4 addresses > > for new > > organizations deploying dual-stack > > I think I understood what you meant, but not what you said. > If someone is dual stack, they are

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-02 Thread Owen DeLong
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 18:05 , Brandon Martin wrote: > > On 12/1/19 8:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> End Users >> End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and >> not for distribution to external users of their Internet services. > > I guess it's possible that

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-02 Thread Owen DeLong
That’s a one-time fee for end-users (and it can be as low as $250 unless you need a /40 or more). If you’re an ISP, then yes, it’s $500 per year if you need a /40 or more (or as little as $250 if you can get buy on less than a /40). Owen > On Dec 1, 2019, at 17:23 , Matthew Kaufman wrote: >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-02 Thread Willy Manga
Hi, On 02/12/2019 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > From: Mark Tinka > [...] > On 1/Dec/19 02:54, Brandon Martin wrote: > >> How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy >> IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very >>

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Justin Streiner
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:58 PM Brandon Martin wrote: > Does Verizon still own/manage ANY of their Fios territories? I thought it > was all sold off to Frontier at this point. It certainly all is, along > with all their legacy LEC territories not having FTTx and having some form > of DSL,

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread bzs
This is that reasoning that because this particular shiny bauble is laying right here on the table then that's the whole picture. More likely if some of them decided to sell that IPv4 block they'd catch up on the rent or cut deductibles on the health care plan or or get rid of some of that

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Brandon Martin
On 12/1/19 8:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: End Users End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not for distribution to external users of their Internet services. I guess it's possible that these networks would be considered end users, but I get the impression

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Mark Andrews
End Users End users receive IP addresses for use in their internal networks only, and not for distribution to external users of their Internet services. End Users with Registration Services Plan End users may opt to pay for ARIN registration services on the same schedule as ISPs detailed above

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Matthew Kaufman
I get $500, not $150, when I read the price list. On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient > complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources > for $150/year in registration fees? > > I suppose

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Owen DeLong
You’re saying that there are two networks that are of sufficient complexity/size/whatever to require PA addressing, yet lack the resources for $150/year in registration fees? I suppose it’s not impossible, but I’m wondering how they afford the other expenses associated with maintaining such a

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Mark Tinka
On 1/Dec/19 02:54, Brandon Martin wrote: > How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy > IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very > usable (/48 to /52 for each IPv4) amount of IPv6? And if you don't need a > "comparable"

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Mark Tinka
On 30/Nov/19 18:45, Ca By wrote: > > > Sadly, ipv6 is creating a bifurcation of the internet.  Scale shops > have v6, and non-scale shops don’t. The big players are pulling away, > and that makes things bleak for the folks just trying to tread water > in ipv4. Well, China have scale, but

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-12-01 Thread Simon Leinen
Matthew Kaufman writes: > This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software > development works: Small addition/correction to this example (which I find interesting and also sad): > Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers. [...] > Full support

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Jared Mauch
I'm still surprised that for $42/mo you can't afford IPv6. If you already have a legacy allocation most cases you can get v6 for "free". I get low budget stuff, but honestly it doesn't have to be you it could be one upstream that gives you a /48 to get you started. Sent from my iCar > On

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:55 PM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said: > > > User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain > > And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly? > Because of the layer at which failure happens. You get

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Brandon Martin
On 11/30/19 8:55 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: >> User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain > And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly? Inability to signal application-level failure on IPv6 and that fallback to IPv4 would succeed. Netflix definitely exhibits this. I've also

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:47:36 -0800, Matthew Kaufman said: > User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain And fallback to IPv4 fails to happen, why, exactly? pgphoWWsRXmVA.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:57 PM Brandon Martin wrote: > On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6 > blocks > > How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy > IPv4 block but not be able to

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Brandon Martin
On 11/30/19 12:18 PM, Justin Streiner wrote: > Verizon is an interesting case.  While IPv6 penetration on the wireless side > is very high, the same is not true on the Fios/DSL side.  IPv6 deployment > there is nearly nonexistent. > I've heard rumblings that some early Fios users will need to

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Brandon Martin
On 11/30/19 4:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6 blocks  How slim are your margins to have been around long enough to have a legacy IPv4 block but not be able to afford the ARIN fees to get a comparable/very usable (/48 to /52

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
Sorry, thought this was the Tunnels part of the thread. Kubernetes Container networking only supported one address per pod until well *after* V6-only clusters were in alpha, so dual-stack want an option. Point is, plenty of popular server-side infrastructure was designed IPv4-first as late as

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
See previous message about legacy IPv4 holders without budget for IPv6 blocks On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:15 PM Filip Hruska wrote: > You can announce your own IPv6 subnets through TunnelBroker. > > Filip > > > On 30 November 2019 8:37:33 pm GMT+01:00, Matthew Kaufman < > matt...@matthew.at>

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
User apps prefer IPv6, Netflix stops, users complain On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:29 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning > off IPv4. > -- > Mark Andrews > > On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >  > This is a great

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Mark Andrews
And how did that stop you deploying IPv6? It’s not like you were turning off IPv4. -- Mark Andrews > On 1 Dec 2019, at 04:03, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >  > This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software > development works: > > IANA IPv4 runout January 2011. > >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Filip Hruska
You can announce your own IPv6 subnets through TunnelBroker. Filip On 30 November 2019 8:37:33 pm GMT+01:00, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner >wrote: > >> >> >> While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have >> native v6 from VZ.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Streiner wrote: > > > While a tunnel from HE works perfectly well, it would be nice to have > native v6 from VZ. > Worked perfectly well. Until Netflix blocked all known tunnel providers. Then my users demanded I turn IPv6 off... so I did. Won’t come back

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Justin Streiner
t-ix.com >> >> >> -Brian >> >> >> ------ >> *From: *"Brian Knight" >> *To: *"Mark Andrews" >> *Cc: *"nanog" >> *Sent: *Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM >> *Subject: *Re:

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
This is a great example (but just one of many) of how server software development works: IANA IPv4 runout January 2011. Kubernetes initial release June 2014. Developed by Google engineers. ARIN IPv4 runout September 2015. Support for IPv6-only Kubernetes clusters alphas in 1.9, December 2017.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Matthew Kaufman
I administer two networks that use legacy IPv4 blocks (one also uses an allocation from the 44 net) Both could have IPv6 if it was free, but neither organization has the funds to waste on a paid IPv6 allocation. We should have given every legacy block matching free IPv6 space, because early

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Ca By
lligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > -Brian > > > -- > *From: *"Brian Knight" > *To: *"Mark Andrews" > *Cc: *"nanog" > *Sent: *Friday,

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-30 Thread Brian Knight
/www.midwest-ix.com -Brian > > From: "Brian Knight" > To: "Mark Andrews" > Cc: "nanog" > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM > Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > > > > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > &g

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-29 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:04 -0500, Brandon Martin said: > definitely the lagging factor, here. I suspect it's at least partially > because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments > for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to > support first-class dual

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-29 Thread Brandon Martin
On 11/29/19 11:29 AM, Brian Knight wrote: 0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us. I help admin a very small (<1k subs, but growing)

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-29 Thread Mike Hammett
ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Brian Knight" To: "Mark Andrews" Cc: "nanog" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-29 Thread Brian Knight
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > >  > >> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight wrote: >> >>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha >>> wrote: - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-28 Thread Sabri Berisha
- On Nov 27, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: > I don't understand how you're using "teams" here. For the most part you > turn it on, and end-user systems pick up the RA and do the right thing. > If you want something fancier, you can do that with DHCP, static >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-28 Thread Owen DeLong
That’s absurd… Yes, you have to support both for now. However, you really only need IPv4 addresses on each front-end box and you only need that until the proportion of eyeball users that lack IPv6 capabilities is small enough to be considered no longer worth the cost of support. I doubt

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Doug Barton
On 11/26/19 12:13 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point rolling out IPv6 costs less than all

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Baldur Norddahl
IPv6 significantly offloads the CGN servers. If you are not yet using CGN you probably won't care, but sooner or later you will. Thanks to the content providers that make this possible by offering enough content by volume available on the IPv6 internet. Regards Baldur

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Brian Knight
>> On Nov 27, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Brandon Butterworth >> wrote: >> >> On Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -0600, Brian Knight wrote: >> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball >> customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet >> content &

RE: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Michel Py
>> Brian Knight wrote : >> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. >> They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & >> services via IPv4 in 2019. > Mark Andrews wrote : > No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight wrote: > > On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha >> wrote: >>> - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: > > [snip] >>> there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Scott Weeks
--- sur...@mauigateway.com wrote: From: "Scott Weeks" No, it's just that (at least in my case at several different companies) we're so focused by management on getting the sale done by augmenting the existing network there is not enough time to devote to **planning an entire network from the

RE: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Michel Py
> Brian Knight wrote : > None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. > They > can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & services via > IPv4 in 2019. And will for the foreseable future. I am not one of your customers, but I like your

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Scott Weeks
--- bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote: From: Brandon Butterworth If you're an internet professional you are a negligent one if by now you are not ensuring all you build quietly includes IPv6, no customer should need to know to ask for it. It's not like it needs different kit.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Brandon Butterworth
On Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -0600, Brian Knight wrote: > None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball > customers. They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet > content & services via IPv4 in 2019. I regularly vet deals for our > sales team, and out

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Sabri Berisha
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: > Sabri volunteered the information that they are an MBA at a large eyeball > network with 20 teams... You drew the wrong conclusions. I wrote: "I have some inside knowledge about the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball network". I

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Brian Knight
On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: [snip] there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to be a strong case to invest the capex to

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Mike Hammett
To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:40:11 PM Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional. - I was just

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-27 Thread Christian
Speaking as being a trifle self-entitled? On 27/11/2019 00:35, Scott Weeks wrote: --- c...@firsthand.net wrote: From: Christian Sounds like your company is about to go offline. So I will say bye bye for now just in case it happens faster than you expected.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Mark Milhollan
On Tuesday 2019-11-26 00:13, Sabri Berisha wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs have bonus targets. IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of that bonus target: there is no

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 27 Nov 2019, at 11:40, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > > --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Ca By > > If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different > issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional. > - > > > I was just expressing the problems

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Scott Weeks
--- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional. - I was just expressing the problems eyeball networks are having getting this done. Shittons of stuff is out there

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Scott Weeks
--- c...@firsthand.net wrote: From: Christian Sounds like your company is about to go offline. So I will say bye bye for now just in case it happens faster than you expected. - Speaking of flippant... No the ILEC has been here since the 1800s.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Christian
com wrote: From: Ca By To: Sabri Berisha Cc: nanog Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:11:40 -0800 On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: I get that some people still don't l

RE: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Michel Py
> Scott Weeks wrote : > A lot of this read to me as flippant. You don't seem to be willing to listen > to those of us out here on the raggedy edges. And there are lots of us. > I've said what Sabri said at least a few times on this list. +1 Michel. TSI Disclaimer: This message and any

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Mark Andrews
> On 27 Nov 2019, at 10:58, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Nov 26, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Willy Manga mangawi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > >> I would have said the very very minimum could be to invest in a >> dual-stack 'proxy' for public-facing services; internal or external >> solution,

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Ca By
jority of real bits/s and dollars are in ipv6. Ymmv. But i reject vehemently the notion that v6 vanity project with no obvious business case / roi (Another misstatement by Sabri). If your business is dysfunctional, that is a different issue from ipv6 being dysfunctional. > scott > > >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Sabri Berisha
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Willy Manga mangawi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, > I would have said the very very minimum could be to invest in a > dual-stack 'proxy' for public-facing services; internal or external > solution, you have the choice. > > And why even do that ? Because the other

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Matt Palmer
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:26:44PM -0500, b...@theworld.com wrote: > If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks > would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you > have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some > trivial

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Scott Weeks
ten to those of us out here on the raggedy edges. I've said what Sabri said at least a few times on this list. scott --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By To: Sabri Berisha Cc: nanog Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:11:40 -0800 On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sa

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Ca By
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha wrote: > - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: > > > I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, > > folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point > > rolling out

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread bzs
If the commitment really was to spread IPv6 far and wide IPv6 blocks would be handed out for free, one per qualified customer (e.g., if you have an IPv4 allocation you get one IPv6 block free), or perhaps some trivial administrative fee like $10 per year. But the RIRs can't live on that. We

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Willy Manga
Hello, On 26/11/2019 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:13:48 -0800 (PST) > From: Sabri Berisha > To: Doug Barton > Cc: nanog > Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > Message-ID: > <1383247942.183700.1574756028904.javamail.zim...@cluecen

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-26 Thread Sabri Berisha
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: > I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, > folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point > rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT. When the

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Doug Barton
On 2019-11-25 20:26, Brandon Martin wrote: On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote: I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT.

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Brandon Martin
On 11/26/19 4:36 AM, Doug Barton wrote: I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT. If it weren't for the ongoing need to

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Doug Barton
On 2019-11-25 1:47 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said: On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman wrote:  I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6. It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Mike Hammett
list" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:47:37 PM Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman wrote: > > > > ��� I believe it���s Eyeball network���s matter to free IPv4 blocks and

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Valdis Klētnieks
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:46:52 +1100, Mark Andrews said: > > On 26 Nov 2019, at 03:53, Dmitry Sherman wrote: > > > >  I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and > > move to v6. > It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining > working

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Doug Barton
The two things feed each other. Big content networks have had IPv6 for years now, and the mobile phone networks are primarily, if not exclusively IPv6 on the inside. Adding IPv6 now helps push the cycle forward, whether you are an eyeball, content, or other network. Doug On 11/25/19 11:50

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Dmitry Sherman
Because we can’t only use ipv6 on the boxes, each box with ipv6 must have IPv4 until the last eyeball broadband user will have ipv6 support. Best regards, Dmitry Sherman Interhost Networks www.interhost.co.il dmi...@interhost.net Mob: 054-3181182 Sent from Steve's creature [X] On 25 Nov 2019,

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Mark Andrews
It requires both sides to move to IPv6. Why should the cost of maintaining working networks be borne alone by the eyeball networks? That is what is mostly happening today with CGN. Every server that offers services to the public should be making them available over IPv6. Most of the CDNs

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Mark Andrews
Message- >>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth >>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM >>> To: NANOG mailing list >>> Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherma

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Scott Weeks
> RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4. --- jeffshu...@sctcweb.com wrote: From: Jeff Shultz Hard to say that something that is in full implementation and use is dead. --- Ok... In the process of dying a slow, painful, agonizing, brutal,

RE: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Nicholas Warren
I think the context was referring to RIPE's v4 space being dead. > > Hard to say that something that is in full implementation and use is dead. > > > > > RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4. > > > > Owen > > > > > > > > RIP RIPE > > >> > > >> Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Jeff Shultz
> > > > > -Original Message- > > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth > > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM > > To: NANOG mailing list > > Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > > > > > > > >> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:5

RE: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Ryland Kremeier
RIP RIPE('s IPV4)* -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 11:19 AM To: Ryland Kremeier Cc: Andy Ringsmuth ; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4. Owen > On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Owen DeLong
RIPE isn’t dead… Just IPv4. Owen > On Nov 25, 2019, at 08:03 , Ryland Kremeier > wrote: > > RIP RIPE > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM > To: NANOG mailing list &

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Dmitry Sherman
I believe it’s Eyeball network’s matter to free IPv4 blocks and move to v6. Best regards, Dmitry Sherman [X] On 25 Nov 2019, at 18:08, Billy Crook wrote:  Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss? On Mon, Nov

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Tei
Thanks I am lurking on this mail list. Sometimes is hard to decipher whats goin on. Always interesting. You guys are awesome. On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 16:57, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to > delegate to the regional registries. >

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Billy Crook
Huh. I guess we get to go home early today then? And look into that whole "Aye Pee Vee Sicks" thing next week aye boss? On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:58 AM Dmitry Sherman wrote: > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4: > > Dear colleagues, > > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we

RE: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Ryland Kremeier
RIP RIPE -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Andy Ringsmuth Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:58 AM To: NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote: > > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4:

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Andy Ringsmuth
> On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote: > > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4: > > Dear colleagues, > > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 > allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have > now run

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Donald Eastlake
I think it is less historic than when IANA ran out of blocks to delegate to the regional registries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Tei
Nice! Is this what I think it is?a historical moment for the internet for the story books? On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 15:59, Dmitry Sherman wrote: > > Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4: > > Dear colleagues, > > Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 >

RIPE our of IPv4

2019-11-25 Thread Dmitry Sherman
Just received a mail that RIPE is out of IPv4: Dear colleagues, Today, at 15:35 UTC+1 on 25 November 2019, we made our final /22 IPv4 allocation from the last remaining addresses in our available pool. We have now run out of IPv4 addresses. Best regards, Dmitry Sherman Interhost Networks

  1   2   >