I tend to think a /60 is a reasonable allocation for a residential user. In my
home I have two subnets and will in time likely add two more:
- general network access
- my office (required to be separate by Cisco Information Security policy)
- (future) would likely want routable separate
On (2010-07-24 03:50 -0400), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Firewall != NAT. The former is still needed in IPv6, the latter is not. And
I
suspect that most Joe Sixpacks think of that little box they bought as a
Maybe you are talking strictly in context of residential DSL, in which case
I
On Jul 23, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
many small
On Jul 24, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2010-07-24 03:50 -0400), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Firewall != NAT. The former is still needed in IPv6, the latter is not.
And I
suspect that most Joe Sixpacks think of that little box they bought as a
Maybe you are talking
On (2010-07-24 02:13 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
This is non-technical problem, enterprises of non-trivial size can't
typically even tell without months of research all the devices and software
where they've written down the IP addresses.
Sounds like they haven't written them down very
André -
Nice program. Congratulations and bonne chance!
- Lucy
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, André Edwards wrote:
Invitation to CARIBNOG 1
--
August 15th – 20th, 2010
Westin Hotel Resort
144 Oyster Pond Road
St Maarten
--
Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers - Final Call for
Comments and Background Report
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23jul10-en.htm
-- Forwarded message --
From: IPv3.com ipv3@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM
Subject: ASN IANA
Owen DeLong wrote:
Why on earth would you do that? Why not just put the provider-assigned
addresses on the interfaces along side the ULA addresses? Using ULA
in that manner is horribly kludgy and utterly unnecessary.
Because, although one of the original goals of IPv6 was for hosts to be
I'm trying to find versatile vendors that can handle a variety of
features that meet my needs for several projects. Honestly, the projects
aren't that big, but I'd like certain versatility with them, and having
trouble finding the right vendors. Perhaps it's just my engineering that
is flawed.
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 08:50 -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Even if all your hosts end up with external connectivity that works, the odds
that they can reliably talk to each other is low.
I hope I'm not taking the above quote out of context, but why do you
think this? How does the fact that
Enterprises of non-trivial size will likely use RFC4193 (and I
fear we will notice PRNG returning 0 very often) and then NAT it to
provider provided public IP addresses.
Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create a site
you can register your address and know that it
What's crazy is:
a) How each org/company seems to be handling these notices
themselves.
b) How they seem to be filtering down to operations people to sort
out.
Seems like an opportunity for some lawyers to form a membership
association. Agree to some reasonable policy, send them your
Thanks for the support everyone.
Our hope is for the community to grow as a rich resource.
Look out for more updates.
Regards,
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Lucy Lynch lly...@civil-tongue.net wrote:
André -
Nice program. Congratulations and bonne chance!
- Lucy
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010,
On Jul 24, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Such a site would be the seed for when (if) we come up with the tech
for everyone to have PI and lose all the restrictions imposed so far.
Oh, we have the technology. It's called memory. Speaking from the perspective
of a vendor, I'll
Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create a site
you can register your address and know that it really is unique
among participating registrants. Random is fine, unique is better.
Such a site would be the seed for when (if) we come up with the tech
for everyone to have
On Jul 24, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Why on earth would you do that? Why not just put the provider-assigned
addresses on the interfaces along side the ULA addresses? Using ULA
in that manner is horribly kludgy and utterly unnecessary.
Because, although
Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create a site
...
Did you mean something like this maybe ?:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
Q.E.D.
The RFC seeks to avoid a registry so we end up with the potential for
many as a result. May as well have had ARIN do it
Such a site would be the seed for when (if) we come up with the tech
for everyone to have PI and lose all the restrictions imposed so far.
Oh, we have the technology. It's called memory
If that were viable then we'd be doing it.
Speaking from the perspective of a vendor, I'll happily
On Jul 24, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 08:50 -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Even if all your hosts end up with external connectivity that works, the
odds
that they can reliably talk to each other is low.
I hope I'm not taking the above quote out of context,
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:42 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
You do have to properly set up the rules for which addresses to use for what
communication properly. It breaks less if you forego the ULA brokenness,
but, some people insist for whatever reason.
What is the ULA brokenness?
Regards, K.
--
On Jul 24, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Enterprises of non-trivial size will likely use RFC4193 (and I
fear we will notice PRNG returning 0 very often) and then NAT it to
provider provided public IP addresses.
Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 18:49 +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Did you mean something like this maybe ?:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
Q.E.D.
The RFC seeks to avoid a registry so we end up with the potential for
many as a result. May as well have had ARIN do it officially in the
The RFC provides for two address ranges in fc00::/7, one for random
prefixes (fc00::/8), the other reserved for later management (fd00::/8).
Later, in some undefined way. A PI lacking enterprise considering
doing v6 this way either waits or decides the available space will do
as someone will
Karl Auer wrote:
The random one allows for swift, bureaucracy-free self-allocation. The
more important it is to you that your allocation be unique, the more
careful you will be to choose a truly random one.
If it is that important, you'd prefer a managed solution, not a truly
random one.
33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
As some people (who understand IPv4) know, there is a SINGLE
spare/unused bit in the IPv4 header that can be set to 0 or 1.
Some religions require that it be set to 0. Adult content is marked with a 1.
That single bit can be viewed as
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Rough translation: LSN + CALEA = Very Interesting Times for ISPs that deploy
LSN and are subject to CALEA.
why wouldn't you just do the intercept before the LSN? (also, calea
and it's ilk knew this was coming, 'your failure
I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
On 7/24/10 3:26 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
33-bit is a fucking retarded
isn't ipv3@gmail.com jim fleming?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg04279.html
(for reference)
pls to not be replying to the list when ipv3.com posts to nanog..
-Chris
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:49:55 BST, Brandon Butterworth said:
The RFC seeks to avoid a registry so we end up with the potential for
many as a result. May as well have had ARIN do it officially in the
first place so there'd only be one.
Given our failure rate with registries of AS numbers, IP
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:40:58 EDT, Christopher Morrow said:
why wouldn't you just do the intercept before the LSN?
That gets interesting too, when several tens of thousands of users may all be
behind the same LSN. Making sure you intercept only the right user's traffic
gets a lot more
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:28 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:40:58 EDT, Christopher Morrow said:
why wouldn't you just do the intercept before the LSN?
That gets interesting too, when several tens of thousands of users may all be
behind the same LSN. Making sure
n3td3v Security is monitoring the situation between North Korea, US and South
Korea.
North Korea has already threatened to use its nuclear arms when the wargames
begin Sunday by United States and South Korea, but n3td3v Security predicts
North Korea is planning a large scale cyber attack on US
On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
The RFC provides for two address ranges in fc00::/7, one for random
prefixes (fc00::/8), the other reserved for later management (fd00::/8).
Later, in some undefined way. A PI lacking enterprise considering
doing v6 this way either
I cant check that link out right now, but if what you say is true,
this would be very serious. Can anyone confirm this?
On 7/24/10, andrew.wallace andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com wrote:
n3td3v Security is monitoring the situation between North Korea, US and
South
Korea.
North Korea has already
James,
1. cyberwar is bullsh*t, always has been, always will be.
2. we are risking a cyberwar (which is, as previously mentioned,
bullsh*t) with North Korea which can't even feed itself, let alone buy
things like computers, or real internet access. So, yes you can knock
out root name
On 7/24/10 3:49 PM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote:
I cant check that link out right now, but if what you say is true,
this would be very serious. Can anyone confirm this?
The North Koreans have historically threatened to go to war whenever the US
and South Korea are performing
On 7/24/2010 7:44 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
Can you provide information to back this up? At first glance glance I am
having a hard time believing this is anything but speculation, but would be
interested to hear more.
That is because n3td3v is a troll. Please do not feed, thx.
Andrew
Maybe we should check snopes.com. Haha.
Excuse the spelling/punctuation, this is sent from my mobile device...
ChrisFenton
On Jul 24, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Ryan Rawdon r...@u13.net wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:22:56 -0700 (PDT), andrew.wallace
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com wrote:
n3td3v
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 14:07 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
The chance that any
random prefix will conflict with any chosen prefix is very, very small.
The chance that two conflicting prefixes would belong to entities that
will ever actually interact is even smaller. Makes it an interesting
Original Message
Subject: Re: North Korea conflict with US and South Korea could spark
cyber war
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: andrew.wallace andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com
To: Andrew Kirch trel...@trelane.net
Continue to call me a troll in
Normally, I wouldn't top post, but in just this one instance...
Andrew Wallace, aka n3td3v, and one of the few people to EVER be banned
from Full Disclosure, is a troll. Please don't copy his message back
when you reply to him, since most of us long ago dropped him in the kill
file.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 7/24/2010 7:44 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
Can you provide information to back this up? At first glance glance I am
having a hard time believing this is anything but speculation, but would
be
interested to hear more.
That is because n3td3v is a
I'd request that anyone with evidence that Andrew Wallace had
inappropriate contact with a minor male child in 1999, please contact me
off-list.
Thanks, and this will be my last response to anything regarding Mr.
Wallace publicly as I'll no longer be seeing much of him.
Andrew
On 7/24/2010 2:10 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
...
It does indeed seem to be tool/net.kook day here on NANOG. I didn't
check to see if there is supposed to be a full moon tonight.
jms
Close! Full Moon on 25 July 2010 at 9:37 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/2010 2:10 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
...
It does indeed seem to be tool/net.kook day here on NANOG. I didn't check
to see if there is supposed to be a full moon tonight.
jms
Close! Full Moon on 25 July 2010
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Such a site would be the seed for when (if) we come up with the tech
for everyone to have PI and lose all the restrictions imposed so far.
Oh, we have the technology. It's called memory
If that were viable then we'd be doing it.
We are.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:57:49 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Enterprises of non-trivial size will likely use RFC4193 (and I
fear we will notice PRNG returning 0 very often) and then NAT it to
provider provided public IP
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:41:18 +0100 (BST)
Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
The RFC provides for two address ranges in fc00::/7, one for random
prefixes (fc00::/8), the other reserved for later management (fd00::/8).
Later, in some undefined way. A PI lacking enterprise
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create a site
...
Did you mean something like this maybe ?:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
Q.E.D.
The RFC seeks to avoid a registry so we end up with the potential for
many as a
50 matches
Mail list logo
