Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
That same customer is also
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses from
On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:36 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:44 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
So, if your company is not doing IPv6
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes
this is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
IMHO, no.
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200
Graham Beneke gra...@apolix.co.za wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za, Graham Beneke writes:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes th
is is used
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that much address space nobody
really cares).
People may
On 2010-10-20 22:19, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently did something with IPv6, if you
On 2010-10-21 13:33, Ray Soucy wrote:
[..]
People may throw a fit at this, but as far as I'm concerned FD00::/8
will never leave the edge of our network (we null route ULA space
before it can leak out, just like you would with RFC1918 space). So
you can pretty much use it has you see fit. If
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
For for all intents and purposes if you're looking for RFC1918 style
space in IPv6 you should consider the block FD00::/8 not FC00::/7 as
the FC00::/8 space is reserved in ULA for assignment by a central
authority (who knows why, but with that
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
doesn't exist in IPv6. There is no IPv6 NAT (yet).
If you
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
All well and good until some of their customers are on IPv6...
Then what?
Someone will build an appliance to deal with this problem. ;-)
Jens
--
-
| Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Jens Link wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
All well and good until some of their customers are on IPv6...
Then what?
Someone will build an appliance to deal with this problem. ;-)
And I estimate that the user experience through such appliances
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be asking an authority
for FC00::/8 space to be assigned. But then why wouldn't you just ask
for a GUA at that point.
I guess my point is that as soon as you introduced the human element
into ULA with no accountability, it became a lost cause. People can't
be trusted to respect the RFC once they know it's non-routed address
space, and I suspect most won't. Just like countless vendors still
use 1.1.1.1 as a
On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Sorry for the double post. From re-reading the thread it doesn't
sound like you might want ULA at all.
The mindset of using RFC1918 space, throwing everything behind a NAT
box, and not having to re-configure systems when you change ISP
See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
in a year ago.
Perception is a powerful thing. And Joe IT guy at Mom and Pop dot com
(who's network experience involves setting up a Linksys at home) loves
his magical NAT box firewall appliance. Over the last year I've been
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be asking an authority
for FC00::/8 space to be
Hi,
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered, given
that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet, presumably at
one time or another a particular resource may only be able in v4 land, then v4
and v6, then finally v6 only.
I have never been
On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
their existing allocation of a /24 of IPv4 addresses included.
All
On 10/21/2010 11:08 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Are IPv6 connected machines unable to access IPv4 addresses?
Unless you put a application/protocol translation in the middle IPv6
can't talk to IPv4. yahoo(IVI,Ecdysis NAT64) for two possibilities
On 21/10/10 16:07 +0100, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able
in v4 land, then v4 and v6,
On 21 Oct 2010 10:07, Ben Butler wrote:
Showing my ignorance here, but this is one of the things I have wondered,
given that we run both v4 and v6 for a period of time on the Internet,
presumably at one time or another a particular resource may only be able in
v4 land, then v4 and v6, then
On 10/21/2010 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
Is
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic change! ;) ]
On 2010-10-21 18:29, Allen Smith wrote:
[... well described situation about having two/multiple IPv4 upstreams,
enabling dual-stack at both, but wanting to failover between them
without doing NATv6 ...]
Short answer: you
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve, especially when these services are
managed by other parties.
And probably the
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
I can live with running dual stack for a number of years as long as IPv4 has
a turn off date, much like analogue TV services, thus putting onus of
And how would you propose to achieve that ?
Regards
Marshall
responsibility onto the
Hi,
What is the consequence of not managing to transition the v4 network and having
to maintain it indefinitely. I think if the cost / limitations that this may
place on things is great enough then the how will reveal itself with the
interested parties.
Is there a downside to being stuck
One thing to keep in mind is that your IPv6 router and IP router can
be completely different devices. There is no need to forklift your
firewall or current setup if you can easily add an IPv6 router to the
network.
Using multiple ISPs is still something that is a bit tricky. A lot of
people
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:59:38AM -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:52:19AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
But you aren't. No one is.
The core requirement for such announcements is that there be a real
enforcement arm.
If a couple of large carriers set their
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Ray Soucy
Cc: NANOG list
If you're using IPv4 with multiple providers giving you different NAT
pools, then, you're looking at outbound, not inbound resiliency and
the DNS
Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote on 10/21/2010
01:58:46 PM:
My next question would be How many times will that get extended/pushed
back because somebody screams loudly enough?. It will probably sunset
around the time that v6 starts to run out of gas and people start
Mark Smith expunged
(na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org):
ULAs should never and are prohibited from appearing in the global route table
The problem with this statement is that everyone thinks their own table isn't
the Global Routing Table.
-Steve
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your
target populations to matter?
From an
They would be out of business the day they turn IPv4 off. So it will
not
happen.
IMO, this will not be a decision made by ICANN or a network provider. This will
be made by a platform/OS company.
Basically, once IPv6 is presumed ubiquitous (it doesn't have to be actually
ubiquitous) -- just
From: Ray Soucy
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:49 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
See... You're falling into the same elitist mindset that I was trapped
in a year ago.
Perception is a powerful thing. And Joe IT guy at Mom
Thanks to everyone who responded. Just got done talking with Extreme which
no one really mentioned. Seems like decent gear reasonably priced. Anyone
care to comment on them specifically or have them used them a metro Ethernet
build?
=
Eric Merkel
MetaLINK Technologies, Inc.
Email: merkel at
On 21/10/10 14:53 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what percentages of your
From: Dan White
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:30 AM
To: Ben Butler
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up? From an accounting and
cost
recovery
On 10/21/2010 09:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the
public
internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and will be reachable
via v6
only ...
Yep, you can't do
From: Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Allen Smith
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 —
Unique local addresses)
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic change! ;) ]
Short answer: you announce
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 14:19 -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
We've decided to disable SLAAC (State-Less Address Auto-Configuration)
on almost all our IPv6 networks and use DHCPv6 exclusively. This
allows us to only respond with DHCPv6 to the hosts we want to get an
IPv6 address instead of enabling it
On 2010-10-21 21:35, George Bonser wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Allen Smith
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 —
Unique local addresses)
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic
From: Ben Butler
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:18 AM
To: 'Marshall Eubanks'
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
Hi,
What is the consequence of not managing to transition the v4 network
and having to maintain it indefinitely. I think if the cost /
I think you're misunderstanding how DHCPv6 works. Don't think of it
like DHCP that you're used to.
DHCPv6 requires an IPv6 router advertisement to work. There are three
flags of interest in a router advertisement.
One of them is the A (autonomous) flag which is enabled by default
in almost
Also,
Keep in mind that DHCPv6 uses a DUID for host identification and not a
MAC address.
Here is an example ISC DHCPd configuration for an IPv6 network without
open pool allocation (it will only respond for hosts in the config).
# subnet6 for each network
subnet6 FD00:1234:5678:9ABC::/64 {
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:17 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
first - IPv6 isn't 5x IPv4, its only 4x... :)
Couldn't let this one slide...
Bits grow exponentially. Saying IPv6 is 4x IPv4 isn't really accurate
unless you're counting bits.
A 128-bit address space gives you over 340
And since someone asked me for it off-list, example PACL for IOS to
filter RAs and DHCPv6 server traffic on incoming ports:
On each switch:
ipv6 access-list RA_Guard
deny icmp any any router-advertisement
deny udp any eq 547 any eq 546
permit any any
end
And on each switchport:
ipv6
Hello...
I've been following the recent IPv6 threads with interest. I decided
to test the M in LAMP for IPv6 support (Although it was really a FreeBSD
server not Linux). It seems than only newer versions (5.5 rc) of MySQL
support IPv6 network connections. Worse is that although it will
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 04:43:37PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:17 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
first - IPv6 isn't 5x IPv4, its only 4x... :)
Couldn't let this one slide...
Bits grow exponentially. Saying IPv6 is 4x IPv4 isn't really accurate
unless
Well, if the DNS root servers ceased IPv4 service it'd be pretty much
a fait accompli as far as the public internet is concerned.
And, of course, the RIRs could just cancel all the IPv4 route
announcements, whatever they do if someone doesn't pay or whatever.
I'm not sure why any would do that
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Network operations content:
Will We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support
IPv6 be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or
hosting providers?
First, it's not like the flag day
On 10/21/2010 3:53 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Network operations content:
Will We're running MySQL and Postgress servers that do not support
IPv6 be a valid reason for rejecting IPv6 addresses from ISPs or
hosting providers?
Why not have v4 and v6? There's never a reason to reject v6,
How would you respond if that were announced?
If I were king for a day,
But you aren't. No one is.
The core requirement for such announcements is that there be a real
enforcement arm.
Not necessarily. If you announce that YOU will treat that date as a
sunset date for IPv4 and invite
Putting a sunset clause will happen but when it won't matter much. We are not
there yet.
However, I could see it also coming from a vendor as a way to get customers to
upgrade (after that date we will not support IPv4 anymore and provide patches
for IPv4).
- Original Message -
From:
This doesn't mean IPv4 will disappear. Just like the 20+ year old machines
that are still on the net via IPv4 - legacy protocol gateways, pockets of
IPv4 may exist for decades via similar devices -- but at that point, we just
dismiss those guys as crackpots.
Maybe not quite crackpots, but
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
McCrory wrote:
open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that
PostgreSQL is in a similar situation.
I don't know when PostgreSQL first supported IPv6, but it works just
fine. I just fired up a stock
Couldn't let this one slide...
Bits grow exponentially. Saying IPv6 is 4x IPv4 isn't really accurate
unless you're counting bits.
Yep.
IPv6 is 128 bits and IPv4 is 32 bits.
Lots of folks can get an IPv4 /16 which gives then 16 bits to play
with for subnetting. But only network operators
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
McCrory wrote:
open to the world. After a few google searches, it seems that
PostgreSQL is in a similar
I used Extreme 6808 and 6816 in the core and Summit 24's at the
edge/telemetry . The hardware was real flaky. We had lot of issues
with the Line cards. Lot of H?w replacements. Make sure if they can
provide you some statistics of RMA's.
To be fair, Our hardware was EOL, I am not sure if they
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
The first step will be a registrar saying after this date, we will no
longer issue any IPv4 addresses for whatever reason and at the same
time, getting very aggressive in reclaiming space from dead entities,
hijackers,
On 10/21/10 2:59 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote:
On 21/10/10 14:43 -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0700, Christopher
McCrory wrote:
open to the world. After a few google
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addresses, it's going to cost an extra $50/month. ??
Matt
Either the telephone company or the cable company. Probably both.
On 10/21/10 6:02 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra uniqueness would be
desirable, perhaps to the point that you should be
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix. you can
tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to tell if you're
leaking rfc 1918 since your advertisement may well work depending on the
filters of your peers but not very
Anyone on list have any experience with A10 app performance products?
How do they compare with F5, CSS, Netscaler, etc. In particular,
stability, throughput, how they handle affinity, stickiness, pools
(adding, removing nodes live), load balancing algorithms, SSL accel,
reports/stats, etc.
Thanks
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:08 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: Ben Butler; NANOG
Subject: Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
wrote:
The first step will be a registrar saying after this date, we will
no
longer issue
In message 859028c2-9ed9-43ff-aaf9-6e2574048...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za, Graham Beneke writes:
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart
Ray said: .. But then why wouldn't you just ask for a GUA at that point.
What's the cost for a /48 GUA from ARIN these days? Why pay for
something that you're not going to use?
I agree with you but as long as the RIRs charge for integers people
will make up their own if they can find a way.
If
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 01:46 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If your big enough to get your own GUA and have the dollars to get
it routed then do that. If you are forced to use PA (think home
networks) then having a ULA prefix as well is a good thing.
home network: 2620:0:930::/48
In Oz it
On 10/21/2010 5:56 PM, George Bonser wrote:
How does your application on the host decide which address to use when
sourcing an outbound connection if you have two different subnets that
are globally routable?
Many systems generally will go with the closest source address bitwise
to the
Karl,
Where does the 6K come from?
AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member Fee (AUD 675)
and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500)
Then AUD1180 for a /48 each year.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
We use quite a bit of extreme switches. I personally don't have anything
against them other than their purple color
and that I don't really know their IOS that well. But to be fair, they have
worked just fine.
In the future I hope we can migrate over to cisco switches because I'm
On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:10 +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Where does the 6K come from?
AUD$4,175 is the amount - It consists of the Associate Member
Fee (AUD 675) and the IP Resource Application Fee (AUD 3,500)
Then AUD1180 for a /48 each year.
Er - apologies. Yes, the initial fee covers
As long as there are IPv4 clients, you need IPv4 servers to serve them.
Software written (well) for IPv6 can serve both IPv4 and IPv6 from the
same socket, so long as you set the socket option IPV6_V6ONLY
correctly (default except for errant BSD code), but, the machine
needs to have a working IPv4
In the IPv4 world, people had to deal with the results of their own
mistakes. In the IPv6 world, it will be your grandchildren and
great-grandchildren who will have to deal with your mistakes and they
will thank you for leaving them some real challenges and not trying to
engineer away their
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/21/10 6:02 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
That's assuming ULA would be the primary addressing scheme used. If
that became the norm, I agree, the extra
Small correction - there is no annual fee in the first year ;-)
But I agree.. it is too much, and APNIC have been reviewing the Initial
allocation fee for a while now, but haven't made any move on it.
I'd like to see a new class of membership - 'Individual' which had a small
allocation (well,
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Allen Smith wrote:
Hi All,
I've inherited a small network with a couple of Internet connections through
different providers, I'll call them Slow and Fast.
We use RFC 1918 space internally and have a pair of external firewalls that
handle NAT and such.
Due
I think what you will see is ever increasing fees for IPv4 transit rather than
a hard deprecation date.
As IPv4 becomes more expensive than IPv6, people will migrate to save money.
Owen
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Ben Butler wrote:
Hi,
I can live with running dual stack for a number of
On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve, especially when these services are
In message 5a6d953473350c4b9995546afe9939ee0b14c...@rwc-ex1.corp.seven.com,
George Bonser writes:
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
=20
IPv4 think.
=20
You don't re-address you add a new
In Oz it costs real money to get IPv6 address space from the RIR
(APNIC). Around AUD$6K in the first year, around AUD$1100 each year
thereafter.
Your /48, according to the ARIN website, cost you US$625 this year,
will
cost US$937.50 next year, and $1250 every year thereafter.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote:
Justification aside, it is quote affordable for a typical power user.
For large values of affordable.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
* b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) [Thu 21 Oct 2010, 22:59 CEST]:
And, of course, the RIRs could just cancel all the IPv4 route
announcements, whatever they do if someone doesn't pay or whatever.
I think you're mistaking the default-free zone for Usenet. The DFZ
doesn't have 'cmsg cancel'
On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Jared Mauch wrote:
How would you respond if that were announced? Carriers have been doing
technology transitions for years. Cidr to classless. Amps to CDMA or gsm...
This is not new.
My next question would be
Using multiple ISPs is still something that is a bit tricky. A lot of
people have gotten used to the Dual-WAN Firewall appliance boxes that
accept connections from two ISPs and handle the failover, depending on
NAT to maintain the functionality of the Internal network.
Larger organizations
On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Dan White wrote:
Or are the two simply not inter-communicable?
I think that's the $64K question. Do you wait to roll out v6 until you
start seeing v6-only hosts start popping up?
When do you think that will happen and in what
On 10/21/2010 7:53 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
* b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) [Thu 21 Oct 2010, 22:59 CEST]:
And, of course, the RIRs could just cancel all the IPv4 route
announcements, whatever they do if someone doesn't pay or whatever.
I think you're mistaking the default-free zone for
They *will* fight you, and tell you to your face that if you want to
take NAT away from them it will be from their cold dead hands.
And it isn't NAT in and of itself that is attractive. Those people
aren't talking about static NAT where you are just translating the
network prefix. They
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
On 10/21/2010 09:25 PM, George Bonser wrote:
However, consider the fact that there will be v6 only hosts popping up
after IANA/RIR/ISP exhaustion. There will be new entrants in the
public
internet space that cannot obtain v4 addresses and
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:35 PM, George Bonser wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Allen Smith
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 —
Unique local addresses)
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to
In message 20101021170258.ge61...@macbook.catpipe.net, Phil Regnauld writes:
Jeroen Massar (jeroen) writes:
Now the problem with such a setup is the many locations where you
actually are hardcoding the IP addresses/prefixes into: firewalls, DNS
etc. That is the hard part to solve,
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Announce your gua and then blackhole it and monitor your prefix. you can
tell if you're leaking. it's generally pretty hard to tell if you're
leaking rfc 1918 since your advertisement may well work
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Matthew Petach wrote:
So...uh...who's going to be first to step up and tell their customers
look, you get a v6 /56 for free with your account, but if you want
v4 addresses, it's going to cost an extra $50/month. ??
Matt
Either the
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message e22a56b3-68f1-4a75-a091-e416800c4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make ULA
really bad for the internet.
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
