Hi
IETF IPv6 Operations WG is looking at this draft, and we're interested in any
comments you might have as well.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms, Jari Arkko, Fred
Baker, 12-Jul-10
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 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
On Jul 25, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
Deal all
I want to show you some obstacles that some countries face them every day.
For example when users from Sudan trying to access some web site they will
get a *Forbidden Access Error* message.
And some messages say: you are
On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
And let's not forget that the article which came up with the title of this
thread equates IETF with Internet Founders and is talking about the 1990s
and the introduction of diffserv.
If that's the case, the proceedings of ISOC's INET '98
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/internet-traffic-reportedly-routed-chinese-servers/
I have read the article and the list, and I'm puzzled. It's pretty clear that
the root gets its records from a common source, and that the
On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
My question is what architectural recommendations will you make to your
employer if/when the US Govt compels our employers to accept our role as the
front lines of this cyberwar?
I figure once someone with a relevant degree of influence in
On Dec 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 12/18/2010 9:52 PM, Joseph Prasad wrote:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242051,un-mulls-internet-regulation-options.aspx
Given the season, their efforts appear to be a form of mulled whine.
Well, if you have followed the news, it
On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Well, if you have followed the news, it comes down to the fact that
some of our old friends from WSIS/WGIG/IGF+ICANN/GAC we're the
government and we like the idea of being in charge friends are at it
again. In one corner, Brazil, China, South
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Jim Gettys wrote:
Common knowledge among whom? I'm hardly a naive Internet user.
Anyone actually looking into the matter. The Cisco fair-queue command was
introduced in IOS 11.0 according to
On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Jim Gettys wrote:
I don't know if you are referring to the RED in a different light paper:
that was never published, though an early draft escaped and can be found on
the net.
Precisely.
RED in a different light identifies two bugs in the RED algorithm, and
On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Jeremy wrote:
Has there been any discussion about allocating the Class E blocks? If this
doesn't count as future use what does? (Yes, I realize this doesn't *fix*
the problem here)
yes. The bottom line is that it only gives you a few more /8s, and every host
and
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
So once the early adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary cost.
Interesting reasoning. I
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
survive in the case of all out war and massive destruction. (strategic
nuclear strikes)
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
the creation of the internet to create and infrastructure that would
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com
You mean, like drop a couple of trade towers and take out three class
five switches, causing communication outages throughout New England
and New Jersey, and affecting places
On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
http://www.marketingvox.com/under-the-microscope-what-the-end-of-ipv4-means-for-marketers-048657/
I can hear people, say oh no
Interesting to see that marketers do not like CGNAT.
They missed an important point.
Who Will Be
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect;
that's why the bgp prefixes were withdrawn. What was effective was the
withdrawal of BGP prefixes.
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml notes, for
example, that routes *through* Egypt were
ah
On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:25 13PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect;
that's why the bgp prefixes were withdrawn. What was effective was the
withdrawal of BGP prefixes.
Per
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
there are a thousand means. the problem lies with the intent.
yes
On Mar 17, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold wrote:
Could this also be part of a communications blackout ? No, not in a
sinister, government keeping secrets, manner. A friend of mine serves on a
ship that's over there right now. He dropped me a note last night that they
were
On Mar 20, 2011, at 11:04 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
one would almost expect there'd be 555-equivalent
address spaces defined by the IETF already.
In IPv6, I would expect the documentation example (2001:db8::/32) would suffice
for the purpose.
On Mar 29, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Wil Schultz wrote:
So far the consensus is to run dual stack natively.
While this definitely is the way things should be set up in the end, I can
see some valid reasons to run ipv4 and ipv6 on separate domains for a while
before final configuration. For
That is very much to be expected, if nothing else due to pent-up
demand. The existing vsat infrastructure tends to be pretty saturated,
meaning that users experience a lot of loss as well as delay. What if
they stop losing traffic?
War story: in 1995 I found myself sharing a podium with
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a
number of
years to come.
Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and broadband
On Oct 9, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
Well, since it's been documented that internet speed / usage varies
with
the weather (it gets faster when it's sunny, slower when it rains)
I'm sure some
seasonal correlation could be found.
Could you point to the documentation?
I having
On Oct 21, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
It is precisely because the traffic has no signature distinguishable
from normal application traffic
oh my goodness. You're behind on your reading...
They exist and for certain applications are pretty effective.
On Oct 21, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
I was not aware that tools or techniques to do this are widespread
or highly functional in a way that would get them adopted in an
Internet access control application of a
There are specifications for them being developed in the IETF, BBF,
and Cable Labs. Basically, all of the usual suspects are interested in
having product that meets needs.
On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Wade Peacock wrote:
We had a discussion today about IPv6 today. During our open thinking
Basically, if the address used by a host is allocated using RFC 3971/4861/4941,
the host assumes a /64 from the router and concocts a 64 bit EID as specified.
If the address used by the host is allocated using DHCP/DHCPv6, it is the 128
bit number assigned by the DHCP server. I see no reason
This is just a guess, but I'll bet the route changed while you were measuring
it.
Traceroute sends a request, awaits a response, sends a request, ... Suppose
that the route was
172.28.0.1 - 10.16.0.2
- 41.200.16.1
- 172.17.2.25
- 213.140.58.10
-
On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
I just had a personal email from a brand new ISP in the Asia-Pacific area
desperately looking for enough IPv4 to be able to run their business the way
they would like…
This is just a data point.
We're going to be hearing a lot more of
of your mail servers.
Hi Eric,
The only relatively recent thing I'm aware of in the Congress is the
Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.
Since you bring it up, I sent this to Eric a few moments ago. Like you, IANAL,
and this is not legal advice.
From: Fred Baker f
On Jan 18, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Shumon Huque wrote:
But, checking www.worldipv6launch.org just now shows that it
have IPv6 records now:
I just successfully accessed it using IPv6. The service is real, not just the
DNS record. The address I accessed it at was 2600:809:600::3f50:411.
with my military son, whose buddies
apparently call me skynet, amusing...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com
Date: May 9, 2012 12:55:40 PM PDT
To: Colin Baker ...
Subject: Re: skynet
On May 9, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Colin Baker wrote:
so my friends and i have taken to calling
Before we get too deeply exercised, let Margaret and I huddle on it.
The issue you raised can be trivially solved by adding the checksum
offset to a different 16 bits in the address, such as bits 96..127. In
fact, the only reason to care which bits it is added to is to handle
multi-DMZ
You already have a fair bit of information, but the short answer to
your question is...
Apart from a few special purposes addresses (see RFC 4291), IPv6
addresses are a cross between IPv4-style CIDR addressing and XNS/IPX/
ISO-style network+host addressing. Bits 0..63 of the address are a
If it's at all like the EU Date Retention provisions, it would be in
the ISP, not the home router. The Danish want the moral equivalent of
a netflow trace for each user (log of the kind of information netflow
records for a session for each TCP/UDP/SCTP session the user initiates
or
I am not a lawyer; I am a person that can read something that is
written in the English language, and considered by some to be a
reasonable man. So please don't consider this to be legal advice.
Also, although I am posting from a Cisco account, this note represents
my understanding based
On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
B) Technical standards for NAT NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's.
Too true, but no reason ARIN could not be taking a more active
role. This
is after all, in ARIN's best interest, not the IETF's.
There is work happening in the behave
On Jun 1, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Solution: new type of local addresses that doesn't require any
router magic to keep the packets within the site, and is globally
unique so network merging isn't an issue.
But ULAs *do* require router magic. They require a policy to
On Jun 4, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:32:39 PDT, Jim Shankland said:
*No* security gain? No protection against port scans from
Bucharest?
No protection for a machine that is used in practice only on the
local, office LAN? Or to
On Jun 15, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Kevin Day wrote:
I've never tried it, but I've heard that they've been surprisingly
helpful, even in cases where it was obviously not Microsoft's fault
(directly, anyway). I'm not 100% positive that their policy
explicitly allows OEM license holders to use
On Jul 27, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Yes, I do. The free market is a system where corporations like to
take
the easiest road to do the least work to maximize profits, while
everyone
else is doing the same thing.
Recognizing your biases here, I think an economist might define it
On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Could you post a summary, in appropriate technical terms, of
precisely what is being requested, and what changes to BGP they want?
Really.
I can read tea leaves with the best of them, and the tea leaves I see
tell me the reporter (in
My sense is that the ITU has played with such ideas in the past, and
the governments have for the most part found it in their interest to
not screw with the Internet.
Do you have any specific recommendations on how to keep that true?
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Dec 18, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
And don't be so hard on the ITU folks, the only thing they want to
break is the monopoly of IP address allocation.
With all due respect, they don't want to break said monopoly, assuming
one agrees that it is a monopoly (I think there's a
One might say the same about the IETF, which Randy likes to lampoon.
Not sure how it comes up in this context, as (as Randy loves to remind
us) while many operators attend, it is not first-and-foremost an
operational community. As to ICANN, I think Rich may be talking about
the registries
RFC 4594 would suggest using DSCP CS2 (01xx in the TOS byte; xx is
the ECN flags). Section 3.1 discusses the issues with CS7, which is
the DSCP counterpart to the deprecated IP Precedence 7. RFCs 2474/2475
discuss the Differentiated Services Architecture and its implementation.
The primary value of a firewall is two-fold:
- It enables a network administrator to define his edge, the
interior of which he is responsible for.
- It enables a network administrator to isolate his network from
externally-originated traffic per his whims and viewpoints.
IMHO, it is not
On Jan 15, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
1. Unlike GhostNet, which showed an interesting attack but jumped to
conclusions without evidence that it was China behind them -- based
on Ethos alone I'd like to think that when Google says China did it,
they know. Although being a
The Google Spokesperson I heard on the radio yesterday evening said
that they had not yet stopped censoring, and declined to give a date
when they would. His point was that the clock is ticking and Google
can see it.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Anthony Uk wrote:
The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from
their inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
I'm not Chinese, but putting myself in their position...
I would be surprised if they were trying to
On Jan 15, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Bruce Williams wrote:
Can you prove you are not Chinese and my computer is not hacked?
Fred is your real name, isn't it? You are Fred, aren't you?
You. Says so on my business card...
inline: IMG_2226_2.jpg
On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Per the followup comments on this, the domain owner might be able to
do some things in domain name usage and IP Address assignment to
mitigate this, the initial and on-going costs of getting this right
and the likelihood of eliminating all
I could imagine that the FCC sees it as a data source.
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests. I
particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
The FCC is probably
On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
http://www.broadband.gov/
I'm listening to all this and thinking through the questions the FCC might be
asking. I'm also trying to do a somewhat-controlled test, which I'll give you
the first several samples of. See attached.
I picked up
Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside, or
are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into the
backbone?
If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside, they're not
hurting themselves or anyone else. I would personally
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against Network
Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
The FCC has a definition of sorts, in terms of its six principles. Page three
of
On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
+1. 6to4 is very bad and should be off my default, but unfortunately many
end users unwittingly have it on and this may provide them some relief.
So am I to understand that services like Toredo client (which is what I
PRESUME is being
On May 27, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
Not picking on you personally .. but let's call a spade a spade, shall
we? .. this is market research sponsored by a vendor with a hat in the
game. Not exactly objective, and wasn't disclosed up-front.
OK, let me step in here.
This was
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/
You just learned about this now?
In fact I did. I certainly haven't seen it mentioned on NANOG in the last 6
months or so; where should I have
On Jun 23, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Pete Carah wrote:
On 06/23/2011 06:16 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/23/2011 12:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I am sure it has come up a number of times, but with IPv6 you can
make up fancy addresses that are (almost) complete words or phrases.
Making it almost
On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-07-10 17:56 , David Miller wrote:
[..]
+1
The lack of will on the part of the IETF to attract input from and involve
operators in their processes (which I would posit is a critical element in
the process).
Eh ANYBODY,
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
have been worth it? LISP apparently has
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status:
On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
At this point, it might be interesting to do the following:
- enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
- enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296
- execute a cost/benefit analysis on both solutions
I'll let
On Aug 18, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Mark Keymer wrote:
I am wondering what some of you guys do when your home ISP is down. At
least those of you that don't give yourself internet.
I'm on Cox Business Services, a Cable Modem network. The bad news: I pay more
for less bandwidth. The good news: I
Well, think about RST attacks, in which someone bombards a TCP connection with
TCP RESET in the hopes of threading a needle and taking it down. It's not the
end of the world - BGP restarts - but there is an outage. The simplest way to
protect against that (and against having someone with a
> On Oct 7, 2018, at 12:23 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
> That was one advantage of the old air raid siren system, it was difficult to
> ignore and required nothing special to receive (hearing
> impaired excepted.)
Where I grew up, the “Civil Defense Warning” was used for air raids, nuclear
On Oct 16, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
> Well, simply put, the idea is that you should be able to compensate
> for a certain amount of deviation from accepted usage as long as its
> still within what the protocol allows (or can be read to allow) but
> that you yourself should act with
On Dec 19, 2018, at 3:50 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> /24 is certainly cleaner than 255.255.255.0.
>
> I seem to remember it was Phil Karn who in the early 80's suggested
> that expressing subnet masks as the number of bits from the top end
> of the address word was efficient, since subnet masks
According to this, Weather Underground was purchased by the Weather Channel and
firmed “The Weather Company”, and that was in turn purchased by IBM last year.
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/weather-underground-bought-by-ibm.html
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in
> On Apr 11, 2019, at 8:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I’m pretty sure that no matter how good your power management is, any cell
> phone’s battery will die long before its /64 can be scanned.
And that might be the point of the scan - not to find the addresses in use, but
to deplete the
Between overlaid ads and the thing trying to force an account, i’d Describe it
as a waste of time. Now, a page that delivered the data advertised...
Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> On Aug 3, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
>
> Feel free to open
> On Aug 4, 2019, at 5:29 PM, Chriztoffer Hansen
> wrote:
>
> The question was simply about if GLBP/HSRP had ever been up in discussions in
> the IETF concerning publishing the protocol specifications as a standard. (As
> pointed out. I totally forgot about the RFC concerning HSRP.)
> On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached,
> and used to end innocent lives?
I''d suggest reducing their reputation rankings, as
The fundamental reason given, from several sources, was that our experience
with IPv4 address trading says that no matter how many IPv4 addresses we create
or recover, we won't obviate the need for a replacement protocol. The reasons
for that are two: (1) IPv4 isn't forward compatible with
On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:25 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Is there an official name for it I should be searching for?
The IETF calls it "DoH", pronounced like "Dough".
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/doh/about/
There are a number of such services from Google, Amazon, and others. Firefox
and
> On Nov 1, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
> If somehow all the transatlantic (and/or transpacific) cables are offline;
> will the whole internet outside of the US stop working, too?
This has nothing to do with cables, and everything to do with information
control and
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 5, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> For SP-grade routers, there isn't "code" that needs to be added to combat
> buffer bloat. All an admin has to do is cut back on the number of packet
> buffers on each interface -- an interface setting, you see.
A
> 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.
On Oct 3, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 10/3/19 8:22 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> And on lists like this, I am told that there is no deployment - that
>> nobody wants it, and anyone that disagrees with that assessment has
>> lost his or her mind. That
On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison have started Public
> Safety Power Shut-offs (PSPS) in California wildfire high-risk areas.
>
> Shut-offs are taking place in three phases. PG began shutoffs at midnight
> in Northern
On Oct 3, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> You still need a IPv6 version of RFC 1812.
If we were to start with the current draft, I would probably want to start
over, and have people involved from multiple operators.
That said, let me give you some background on RFC 1812. The
On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> It appears that the only parallel paper for IPv6 is
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-04, _Requirements for IPv6 Routers_, which
> currently carries a copyright of 2018. It's a shame that this document
> is still in limbo; witness this quote:
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 3, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 10/3/19 8:42 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has be
> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has been around for 25 years, and why
> is it taking so long for everyone to adopt it?" I present as evidence
> the lack of a formally-released requirements RFC for IPv6. It suggests
> that the
> On Feb 18, 2020, at 4:00 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
> I am not a fan of quic or any udp traffic. My suggestion was that Google use
> an new L4 instead of UDP, but that was too hard for the Googlers.
The argument I have heard is that residential firewalls often block anything
that is *not* UDP or
> This time it’s PG all alone, but still fallout from back then. Too much
> liability and they’ve not maintained the infrastructure and so they decided
> that to reduce the liability costs it’s cheaper to blackout. Same story again
> different colors. PG making a mint while people get screwed
Would an engineer from Cox please contact me privately?
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> The only other option then becomes the secondary transfer markets, where
> costs to acquire v4 space are much higher than what direct allocations from
> the RIRs used to be.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:35 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
>
your comments to if you wish.
>
> Thanks,
> Fernando
>
>
>
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets
> with Extension Headers"
> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:55:45 -0700
For the record, we are asking similar questions about 464XLAT in v6ops. If you
are deploying it, please advise Jordi Palet Martinez.
For those unfamiliar with them, MAP-T and 464XLAT are each deployment
frameworks for IPv4/IPv6 translation, as described in RFCs 4164, 4166, 4167,
and 7915.
I recently had a discussion with an Asian ISP that was asking the IETF to
PLEASE re-declare DoD space to be private space so that they could use it. This
particular ISP uses IPv6 extensively (a lot of their services are in fact
IPv6-only) but has trouble with its enterprise customers. Frankly,
I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it points to an
underlying problem.
Sent from my iPad
> On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>
>
> I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband
> everyone can agree on. Is there
On May 28, 2021, at 11:55 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the
> last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were
> also schooling from home. Parents had to arrange work calls around
> their kids classroom time and
> On Jan 22, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Valdis Klētnieks
> wrote:
>
> And how would you define "fully implement v6", anyhow?
I would define it this way: if something can be done using IPv4, it has an
obvious IPv6 counterpart that is usable by the same community to the extent
that the community is
The "RFC" you're looking for is probably
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02, which was not agreed to
and so has no RFC number. The fundamental issue that was raised during that
discussion was that while repurposing class e would provide a few more IPv4
addresses and so delay
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
