Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Josh, A city can build a competitive service that is revenue neutral or even a source of income for the city without causing the earth to shift on its axis. Often, in fact, government is in a position to make large up-front capital investments in infrastructure that don’t have a fast enough

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 01:33 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 6/2/21 05:50, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: > >> I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling. >> >> Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median >> latency and packet loss rates (both

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> On May 28, 2021, at 06:56 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput. > > What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3? Pretty much everything if you have, say, 3+ people in your house trying to do it at once… A decent Zoom call requires ~750Kbps of

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

My USF dollars at work… You’re welcome. I’d also appreciate it if we didn’t structure the subsidies such that it doesn’t make any economic sense to provide services to the middle-density market. Owen > On May 30, 2021, at 13:56 , Blake Dunlap wrote: > > The co op electric serving my

Re: FreeBSD's ping Integrates IPv6

Linux did this quite some time ago. I guess BSD is just now catching up. Owen > On Jul 2, 2021, at 7:30 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 7/2/21 16:22, Niels Bakker wrote: > >> >> Yes, this broke some of my home network monitoring. Sadly there is no >> 'ping4' in the system, you have to

Re: DoD IP Space

> On Apr 24, 2021, at 16:34 , Jason Biel wrote: > > The internet that is subsidized by that same Government…. Uh, s/is/was/ There’s really no subsidy any more. Owen

Re: DOD prefixes and AS8003 / GRSCORP

ing all that cost along to DoD at a hefty markup, so I suppose that’s some level of transfer of wealth, but as DoD contracts go, I somehow don’t think this one would be regarded as “significant”. Owen > > Don’t you? > > -mel beckman > >> On Mar 15, 2021, at 12:23 PM, Owen DeLo

Re: DOD prefixes and AS8003 / GRSCORP

According to the timeline posted to this list (by you, Siyuan), Globl Resource Systems, LLC was registered in Delaware on September 8, 2020. Your timeline also shows the resources being issued to GRS by ARIN on September 11, september 14, 2020 It looks to me like they subsequently registered the

Re: CGNAT

That’s provably not true if the IPv4AAS implementation is done carefully. Owen > On Feb 19, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: > > Because then a large part of the Internet won't work > > From: NANOG on behalf of Mark > Andrews > Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2021, 9:04 am > To: Steve

Re: CGNAT

> On Feb 22, 2021, at 6:44 AM, na...@jima.us wrote: > > While I don't doubt the accuracy of Lee's presentation at the time, at least > two base factors have changed since then: > > - Greater deployment of IPv6 content (necessitating less CGN capacity per > user) This is only true if the

Re: Amazon Prime Video IP reputation

That’s probably going to be a common theme with CGN and is a really good reason to make IPv6 available to as many of your customers as possible. Owen > On Aug 17, 2021, at 16:30 , Eric C. Miller wrote: > > Does anybody know which IP reputation service Amazon uses for Prime video? > Within

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

There are two sides to every story… On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 09:44, Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>h .l...@anytimechinese.com> wrote: > > Dear John: > > The statements you made are very misleading. > > Here are some clarifications: > > Cloud Innovation is

Re: [EXTERNAL] An update on the AfriNIC situation

Two reasons: 1. They don’t have an AS0 ROA policy currently. 2. It would violate a court order. Owen > On Aug 27, 2021, at 09:45 , Compton, Rich A wrote: > > Can't AfriNIC just create ROAs for the prefixes and point them to AS0? That > would pretty much make the prefixes

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 28, 2021, at 10:02 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > John Curran wrote: > >> Indeterminate at this time, since a “Freezing Order" issued via ex >> party hearing doesn’t actually test the strength of the arguments, as >> the affected party is not present to respond. It is only when the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 00:44 , Noah wrote: > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 03:08 Owen DeLong, <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > >> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> >> wrote: >> >> >> Owen, >&g

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle!

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 11:16 , Bryan Holloway wrote: > > So I've made some progress, but not on the HBO front. (Hulu and Netflix have > been responsive so far.) > > Tried the e-mail address on Mike Hammett and Co.'s handy web-page, but got no > response after several days. Ironically we

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely > internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data > center? Sure… and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per > policy. We also have folks who get creative and make similar

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 03:36 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/31/21 12:26, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: > >> Yes. Or any other furnace where the electricity is only used for >> circulation of the heat. Gas fired Hot water furnaces would be another >> example where there is

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

Here’s an example of the type I was describing in my previous post: https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/23330/how-can-i-retrofit-this-existing-wall-heater-with-an-external-thermostat (Primarily for the image, not the subject matter of the page)

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 12:17 , John Curran wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2021, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely >>> internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data >>>

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 07:15 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/31/21 16:06, Mel Beckman wrote: > >> I think you’re forgetting about the all-important blower fan in a gas-fired >> furnace. > > Well, I was referring to a pure electric furnace, not one that uses a blower > over a gas-fired

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 08:40 , Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> >> On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> >> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what >&

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 07:41 , Mel Beckman wrote: > > Mark, > > But you said “Gas-fired furnaces or heaters should not have an impact because > the only electrical requirement is to fire up the pilot light.” There is no > gas-fired furnace I know of that doesn’t require a blower fan. How

Re: Reminder: Never connect a generator to home wiring without transfer switch

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 09:23 , Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Aug 31, 2021, at 2:11 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) > li...@packetflux.com wrote: > > Hi, > >> I just wish the electrical code would permit or require certain low cost >> things >> which make temporary generator

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 16:32 , Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On 2021-09-01 01:13, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> You just broke 99% of the smart television sets in people’s homes, >> unfortunately. > > If only everybody would not get a separate box, be that a AppleT

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 13:53 , Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Sabri Berisha wrote: > >> - On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ] >> >>> "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

>> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their >> work cut out for them. > > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle!

You just broke 99% of the smart television sets in people’s homes, unfortunately. That will resolve itself over time, of course, as sets are replaced, but anyone with a set that is more than ~3 years old is mostly unlikely to have IPv6 support in it and the vendors are ALL universally terrible

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 17:51 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 8/31/21 5:13 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: >> On 8/31/21 16:32, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: >> >>> Fun part being that it is hard to get a Dumb TV... though that is primarily >>> simply because of all the tracking non-sense in them

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended >> up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor >

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote: > > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts, >> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the >> vigilante justice against any of the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 29, 2021, at 17:41 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > >> I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they >> have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the >> issue has never come up > > As > > ICP-2: Criteria for

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the current situation. AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating costs from their bank accounts in a recent court ruling, so they are nowhere close to shut down. All of the chicken littles

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business >> model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing pol

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl wrote: > >> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs >> do. It’s the definition of an LIR. >> >> Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses >> (mostly/exclusively) to customers of

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:32 , Noah wrote: > > > Owen > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > > So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in > this case, I believe AFRINIC has

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 19:06 , John Kristoff wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700 > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the >> internet. > > Hi Owen, > > Your statement abo

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 22:06 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/31/21 01:29, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the >> current >> situation. >> >> AFRINIC has been given acc

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah wrote: > > > Owen, > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/30/21

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 22:21 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/31/21 07:16, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I guess that depends on whether or not AFRINIC is willing to engage in a >> reasonable >> settlement effort within the next 2 months or not. >> >> I guess we’ll see what they do. > > Lots

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 06:30, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:39 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: >> >> >> >>>> On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantin

Re: Newbie Questions: How-to monitor/control unauthorized uses of our IPs and DNS zones?

> On Aug 19, 2021, at 12:34 , Adam Thompson wrote: > > I just had a conversation with John Curran (of ARIN) about this, in fact... > > You don't own IP addresses. But you also don't rent IP addresses, either. True, but you can rent the registration of an IP address, or, you can acquire a

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>>> On the other hand, the last ti

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

Where possible vote with your dollars by selecting providers that do. Where there are multiple providers and none support v6, make it clear to all that the first one to support v6 will get your business and that subsequently, the best v6 support will win. Where there are not multiple providers,

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:48 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost? >> >> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July,

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

ty to avoid > settling and I utterly reject the idea that the claim of damages is at all > dubious. > >> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through >> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm >> tactics that

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Please review the recent conduct of the AFRINIC board in detail in this context. Owen > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > >> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated > >> b

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 15:17 , Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:28 PM mailto:b...@theworld.com>> > wrote: > > Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several > people who'd tried would say don't do it. > > And everytime I see an email thread about the

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 23:50 , Saku Ytti wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:51, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Hopefully this idea that “you need to do IPv4 anyhow” will die some day soon. > > Fully agreed, I just don't see the driver. But I can imagine a $$ IPv4 continues to increase in

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 11:57 , Niels Bakker wrote: > > * Owen DeLong via NANOG [Wed 08 Sep 2021, 20:35 CEST]: >> IPv4 continues to increase in cost. Surely, there is a point where >> organizations start to cry uncle. > > In most western countries there isn't much

Re: if not v6, what?

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 19:51 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Niels Bakker wrote: > >>> As for well known port, we can specify non-default port numbers >>> in URLs (I'm not sure whether it works for mailto: or not) or. >>> in the future, things like DNS SRV RRs should be helpful. >> This

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> But you don't have to look far before you hit snags like this: > https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/vedlegg-f/ I just sent the following to them: I’m writing about your name server requirements page: https://www.norid.no/en/om-domenenavn/regelverk-for-no/vedlegg-f/ I

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 00:49 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 9/8/21 09:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: > >> Membership fees can be painful, that's for sure. >> They do have positive aspects, though :) > > I encourage other operators (especially the "major" ones - but really, >

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 18:55 , Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Sep 2021 11:39:50 -0700, Owen DeLong via NANOG said: > >> The reality is that if we get content dual-stacked and stop requiring IPv4 >> for new eyeball installations, that’s the biggest initial win.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 12, 2021, at 11:35 , Brian Johnson wrote: > > > >> On Sep 11, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >> >> >> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... >> >>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:31 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: >>> >>> If the mid size eyeballs knew ipv4 is going

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 01:39 , Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > >> On 20210909, at 21:55, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>> [..] >>> Awful lot of red spots even in the top 100. Hell, even amazon.com >>> isn't IPv6 yet. And the long tail is

Re: Voice Middleware

I don’t know the current state, but I believe Asterisk was going down that road for a while. Owen > On Sep 10, 2021, at 05:26 , Mike Hammett wrote: > > Before we build something from scratch, are there platforms that do the heavy > lifting of talking to the Metaswitch API, Peerless's API,

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

First thing I do with any cable modem is convert it to bridge mode. The fewer “smarts” in the cable modem doing odd things to my traffic, the better. Owen > On Sep 10, 2021, at 10:40 , Eric Kuhnke wrote: > > I know this is not a solution to your problem, but I have found myself more >

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 13, 2021, at 05:17 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 9/13/21 01:00, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> >> If vendors actually cared they could make the CGNAT's and other hacks >> ridiculously buggy and really expensive to deploy and maintain. I doubt many >> vendors were chomping at the

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

> On Sep 13, 2021, at 07:56 , Livingood, Jason via NANOG > wrote: > > On 9/10/21, 10:58, "NANOG on behalf of Chris Boyd" > cb...@gizmopartners.com> wrote: > >> Why is Comcast blocking things? That seems like it’s out of scope for an ISP. > > For Internet access, sure. But ISPs also have

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 15, 2021, at 09:31 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Baldur Norddahl wrote: > But in fact with local number portability, you cannot rely on the county > code to tell you where to route a telephone call anymore. >>> >>> Not. With

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 13:51 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > > On 9/14/21 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: 8+8 came MUCH later than that, and really

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 15, 2021, at 16:20 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > > On 9/14/21 12:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> There were four proposals for the IPng: >> >> NIMROD, PIP, SIP, and TUBA >> SIP was the one that was chosen, supported by endpoint manufacturers such as >> Sun and SGI, and it was the

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 6, 2021, at 12:27 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 10:20, Bjørn Mork wrote: > >> Adding new access infrastructure of any sort (Fixed Wireless is the >> hype...)? Why would you want to continue being stupid even if you >> implemented dual-stack for all your fibre,

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 6, 2021, at 3:55 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 08:38:44AM +0200, Xavier Beaudouin via NANOG wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >>> I absolutely HATE testing, developing and supporting IPv4+IPv6, more >>> than doubling my time, adding 3rd stack would actually not increase

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 16, 2021, at 06:35 , Jared Mauch wrote: > > > >> On Sep 16, 2021, at 9:23 AM, Ca By wrote: >> >> >> >> >> This has nothing to do with IPv6, of course, other than that modern phones >> use >> VoLTE so within a mobile carrier's network your voice call is probably >> handled >>

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 11, 2021, at 13:17 , John R. Levine wrote: > >>> Indeed. They would send postcards to all their customers saying >>> "Comcast has said they will cut off your access to Netflix on April 1, >>> Call their president's office at 1-800-xxx- and tell them what you >>> think." >> >>

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 17, 2021, at 21:03 , John R. Levine wrote: > >>> OK, then Disney+ or Hulu or whoever. Peering wars never end well. Don't >>> even need postcards, just stick the flyer in with the bill. >> >> Is that really cheaper and easier than deploying IPv6? Really? > > The cost of putting

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 12:34 , Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM John Levine <mailto:jo...@iecc.com>> wrote: > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <mailto:o...@delong.com>> said: > >> The cost of putting flyers i

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has AT business internet and they were able to get a static /56 (For some reason, AT refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.) If it turns out they won’t do PTR or more likely NS for our ip6.arpa zone, then

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 13:25 , John R. Levine wrote: > >> As you noted John, its the plethora of software, support systems, tooling, >> and most important in many environments - legacy customer management and >> provisioning systems that can be the limiting factor. ... > > Just looking around

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 11:37 , John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG said: >>> The cost of putting flyers in the bills rounds to zero, so yes, really. I >>> expect these companies all have plans >> to support v6 eventually, someday,

Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle!

In general, my experience with IP Geolocation has been that it’s slightly worse than a bad idea, yet that ship has sailed and like Windows, there are way too many entrenched applications using it for logic to ever prevail. I believe Amazon runs their own detection service for this and IIRC,

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 00:21 , Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG writes: > >> The addresses aren’t the major cost of providing IPv4 services. >> >> CGN boxes, support calls, increasing size of routing table = buying new >> routers, etc. &

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 18, 2021, at 23:20 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > >>> Unless their infrastructure runs significantly on hardware and >>> software pre-2004 (unlikely), so does the cost of adding IPv6 to >>> their content servers. Especially if they’re using a CDN such as >>>

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > > On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> 8+8 came MUCH later than that, and really wasn't ready for prime time. The >> reason we know that is that work was the basis of LISP and ILNP. Yes, >> standing on the shoulders of giants.

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 14:20 , Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 9/14/21 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before exposing >> enough information to the community to get the negative feedback their >> solution so richly deserves. At that

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 13:22 , John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG said: >> This is my point… That is why I think an announcement of “On X date, >> we will begin charging extra for IPv4 services and define Internet Access >> to be IPv6

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 10, 2021, at 14:17 , Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On 2021-09-10 18:27, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 01:39 , Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 20210909, at 21:55, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>&

Re: Voice Middleware

ure that is what he is looking for, but it could be. It has been a > while for me as well :) > > Mike, > > Could you give a little more context in what you are trying to do? Are you > looking for something that can manage all those devices via their web APIs? > > -James

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

Yes, I own my own modem even though comcast now charges me $5/month more than if I rented their equipment for this privilege. Owen > On Sep 10, 2021, at 15:49 , Eric Kuhnke wrote: > > Ideally being your own customer owned cable modem that meets specs (Comcast > does allow this in some

Re: A crazy idea

> On Jul 29, 2021, at 22:23, Frank Habicht wrote: > > Hi, > > On 30/07/2021 07:58, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:> ... >> Consider this… I discussed this topic at length with JJB (COMCAST at >> the time) and pushed hard on why they don’t give /48s to their >&g

Re: FYI - Proposed process change at ARIN for some request tickets (was: Fwd: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Retiring the Officer Attestation Requirement)

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 05:56 , John Curran wrote: > > NANOGers - > > The following process change is being proposed in order to simplify customer > request tickers for new number resources and improve overall service. > > If you have strong feelings one way or the other, thenplease join the

Re: A crazy idea

> On Jul 19, 2021, at 06:04 , Stephen Satchell wrote: > > On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote: >> What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack >> and providing some combination of these services for years. They >> already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should

Re: A crazy idea

> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:06 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > t...@pelican.org wrote: >> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said: >> >>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a >>> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country >>>

Re: A crazy idea

> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:14 , Daniel Corbe wrote: > > > >> On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >> >> >> t...@pelican.org wrote: >>> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said: >>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

The single biggest problem with IPv4 is NAT. The primary cause of NAT is address shortage. As such, I’d argue that IPv6 solves the two biggest problems with IPv4. Problem is that those who want to wait until everyone else moves forward before they do are a sufficient mass to severely hamper

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with. > I don't think there is a need neither to invent IPv6 problems, nor to > promote IPv6 advantages. What we need is a way out of dual-stack-hell. I don’t disagree, but a reversion to IPv4-only certainly won’t do it. I

Re: Rack rails on network equipment

> On Sep 24, 2021, at 3:35 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: > > * c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) [Sat 25 Sep 2021, 00:17 CEST]: >> Which - why do I have to order different part numbers for back to front >> airflow? It's just a fan, can't it be made reversible? Seems like that >> would be cheaper

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 24, 2021, at 9:56 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Sep 23, 2021, at 13:26 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> I hope not, both for IPv6 sake and for the network users. We dont know how >>> much longer the goal will take, there is materializing a real

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 24, 2021, at 10:53 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Well, I see IPv6 as double failure really. First, IPv6 itself is too > different from IPv4. What Internet wanted is IPv4+ (aka IPv4 with > bigger address space, likely 64bit). Of course we could not extend IPv4, > so having new protocol

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

aimon > To: Owen DeLong , Bjrn Mork > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 woes - RFC > Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:26:17 -0400 > > > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>> There are real issues with dual-stack, as this thread started out with. >>> I don't

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

ou can go with CGN before the user experience turns universally bad. It turns bad for a lot of customers well before that point. I don’t envy you. Owen > >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> Discuss…? >>> >>> - Brian >>> >>>> O

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 25, 2021, at 02:10 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Because IPv4 loopback is 127.0.0.1/8 and its usefull? How so? Where do you actually use 16.7 million loopback addresses, let alone 18 Quitillion+ * 65536 (/48)? > > 0:0:1-:0/32 means you generate addreses from > that range and not

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 25, 2021, at 14:20 , Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > > On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 21:26, Owen DeLong via NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > So the fact that: > > 2001:db8:0:1::5 > 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:5 > > Are two diffe

Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

> On Sep 25, 2021, at 01:57 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Well, I think we should not compare IPX to IPv4 because those protocols > were made to handle completly different networks? > > Yeah, IPv6 is new, but its more like revolution instead of evolution. > > Well, Industry seems to addapt

Re: Rack rails on network equipment

> On Sep 25, 2021, at 12:48 , Andrey Khomyakov > wrote: > Let me just say from the get go that no one is making toolless rails a > priority to the point of shutting vendors out of the evaluation process. I am > not quite sure why that assumption was made by at least a few folks. With >

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 08:13 , Jared Brown wrote: > > Mark Tinka wrote: >> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I know BitTorrent to >> work is the file is downloaded to disk, unarchived and then listed as >> ready to watch. > That's not how it works. Several streaming BitTorrent

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 09:04 , Jared Brown wrote: > > Doug Barton wrote: >> One incentive I haven't seen anyone mention is that ISPs don't want to >> charge customers what it really costs to provide them access. > For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true. > > For this to work,

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

> On Oct 12, 2021, at 06:45 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 10/11/21 22:57, Matthew Walster wrote: > >> Ignoring for the moment that P2P is inherently difficult to stream with >> (you're usually downloading chunks in parallel, and with devices like Smart >> TVs etc you don't really have

  1   2   3   4   5   >