On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Fixing 4 (which is an easy engineering issue) and 5 (which is an
operations policy issue that, by and large, most people in that
situation understand), *would have had a direct positive effect on
Apple's paying customers*.
Fixing 4 is something apple
On Sep 18, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Which is irrelevent to removing a address block on the basis of a
RIR recording that the block has been reallocated. A reallocation
already goes through a quarantine period though that may get shorter
as time goes on.
A
On Sep 24, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Strawman, Randy.
Clearly, the Internet is *not* up to the task of
1) updating several dozen million devices
2) on links of various quality,
3) with 650MB to 1.2GB downloads and
4) a client that doesn't understand
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the
minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a
network that is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling out
our IPv6 on the
-Original Message-
From: Nathanael C. Cariaga [mailto:nccari...@stluke.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:50 AM
To: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
I've been Google-ing about if there
On 9/24/13 6:47 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Nathanael C. Cariaga [mailto:nccari...@stluke.com.ph]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:50 AM
To: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: minimum IPv6 announcement size
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light
- Original Message -
From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
It went well for most users, it seems the 1-5% of people with odd
configs are the problem.
[ ... ]
IOS7 and monitored for it. Not everything will work for everyone, but
for the majority of users it was fine. (This from
On 24/09/2013 14:49, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed light on my concern.
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the
minimum IPv6 advertisement on BGP.
You need to work on your google-fu then ...
Picked this off www.jaluri.com (network and Cisco blog aggregator):
http://routingfreak.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/ios7s-impact-on-networks-worldwide/
The consensus seems to be for providers to install CDN servers, if they
arent able to cope up with an occasional OS update traffic.
While his
On 24/09/2013 17:55, Glen Kent wrote:
Picked this off www.jaluri.com (network and Cisco blog aggregator):
http://routingfreak.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/ios7s-impact-on-networks-worldwide/
The consensus seems to be for providers to install CDN servers, if they
arent able to cope up with an
You've been robbed!
On 9/24/2013 1:36 PM, Ben wrote:
Hang on a minute.
That last paragraph in his blog sounds awfully similar to something I
posted here the other day !
He says on the 23rd of September :
Users are paying service providers to deliver their IP packets. If
providers cant
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
get our /48 allocation from our RIR
excuse, but which rir handed out a /48 under which policy?
randy
RIPE will give you a /48 of IPv6 PI
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-552#IPv6_PI_Assignments
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
On 24 Sep 2013, at 19:00, Randy Bush wrote:
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level.
On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
get our /48 allocation from our RIR
excuse, but which rir handed out a /48 under which policy?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
nccari...@stluke.com.ph wrote:
I've been Google-ing about if there is such a standard that sets the minimum
IPv6 advertisement on BGP. My concern is that I am running a network that
is operating on multiple sites and currently rolling out
Everyone is following the same policies. a /48 PER SITE.did you
request enough addresses from your RIR?
Bryan Socha
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: September-24-13 12:19
To: Randy Bush
Cc: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I am running a network that is operating
On Sep 24, 2013, at 7:58 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Sep 18, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Which is irrelevent to removing a address block on the basis of a
RIR recording that the block has been reallocated. A reallocation
already goes through a
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Is there an indication or separate list that shows if they've been recycled?
Hi Frank,
Looks like they post a remove message when a block is returned to
the registry and then an add' when it's reassigned. For example,
Any comments on live action Cisco qos configurator would be appreciated
Regards
David
On 24/09/2013 18:54, Michael Brown wrote:
That is most assuredly a rewrite, it's not just your perception.
M.
Surprise surprise, that page now appears to Error 404... guess he must
watch the list quite closely as it didn't take long for him to react ! ;-)
Guess I should be flattered
We got our /48 from APNIC..
-nathan
On 9/25/2013 2:18 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
get our /48 allocation
Hi All,
Thank you for these insights. We'll look into all of these and review
again our options on how we can further proceed in our IPv6 deployment.
Regards,
-nathan
On 9/25/2013 2:33 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
nccari...@stluke.com.ph
Hi,
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for
our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that
this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What makes this
complicated for
On 9/24/13 8:10 PM, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
Hi,
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for
our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that
this can be farmed out to
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Nathanael C. Cariaga wrote:
doing multi-homing and having a /48 in each site would be very big waste
of IP resources.
IPv6 was designed with an expectation of having /48 per geographical site
and this is perfectly fine.
I have a /48 at home.
What is more of a concern
I believe you can get multiple /48 from APNIC. You will not be evaluated
under HD ratio but as discrete network (no iBGP running among them). Here
it is the policy [http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy#5.5.2]
Regards
Roman
On 25/09/13 11:42 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
I'll revisit our application then. Thank you for the info.
-nathan
On 9/25/2013 12:11 PM, Nurul Islam wrote:
I believe you can get multiple /48 from APNIC. You will not be evaluated
under HD ratio but as discrete network (no iBGP running among them). Here
it is the policy
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Date: Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at
08:00:44AM -1000 Quoting Randy Bush (ra...@psg.com):
I am running a network that is operating on multiple sites and
currently rolling out our IPv6 on the perimeter level. Having to
get our /48 allocation from our RIR
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Date: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
11:10:52AM +0800 Quoting Nathanael C. Cariaga (nccari...@stluke.com.ph):
Hi,
I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough
for
30 matches
Mail list logo
