RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

This 'get a /32' BAD ADVICE has got to stop. There are way too many people trying to force fit their customers into a block that is intended for a start-up with ZERO customers. Develop a plan for /48 per customer, then go to ARIN and get that size block. Figure out exactly what you are going to

RE: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA

Owen DeLong wrote: ... It's really unfortunate that most people don't understand the distinction. If they did, it would help them to realize that NAT doesn't actually do anything for security, it just helps with address conservation (although it has some limits there, as well). Actually

RE: ARIN recognizes Interop for return of more than 99% of 45/8 address block

John Curran wrote: On Oct 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: yes, sorry.. since this was returned to ARIN, I assumed the ARIN region drain rate. Ah, good point. It may end up in the global pool, so comparison to either drain rate is quite reasonable. For what it's worth,

RE: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

You didn't miss anything, past ARIN practice has been broken, though using sparse allocation it is not quite as bad as you project. In any case, ISP's with more than 10k customers should NEVER get a /32, yet that is what ARIN insisted on giving even the largest providers in the region. Every ISP

RE: Interesting IPv6 viral video

No idea where this came from, and no I didn't have any part in it. If I had, the rental rates on addresses would have been much more in the range of extortion... ;) -Original Message- From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:ober...@es.net] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:59 PM To: Zaid Ali

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

... yes I know you understand operational issues. While managed networks can 'reverse the damage', there is no way to fix that for consumer unmanaged networks. Whatever gets deployed now, that is what the routers will be built to deal with, and it will be virtually impossible to change it due to

RE: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

*requested anonymous* wrote: (I don't post on public mailing lists, so, please consider this private. That is, I don't care if the question/reply are public, just, not the source.) On 1/10/11 11:46 AM, Tony Hain wrote: ... yes I know you understand operational issues. While managed

RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

Owen DeLong wrote: .. I suspect that there are probably somewhere between 30,000 and 120,000 ISPs world wide that are likely to end up with a /32 or shorter prefix. A /32 is the value that a start-up ISP would have. Assuming that there is a constant average rate of startups/failures per

RE: ipv4's last graph

The individual RIR graphs won't be around long enough to be worth the effort... ;) FWIW: the Jan. 2011 global burn rate (outbound from the RIRs) for /24-equivlents was 18.97 seconds. At the Jan. rate, APnic won't last to June and Ripe might make to the end of August, then chaos ensues. Is there

RE: ipv4's last graph

So in the interest of 'second opinions never hurt', and I just can't get my head around APnic sitting at 3 /8's, burning 2.3 /8's in the last 2 months and the idea of a 50% probability that their exhaustion event occurs Aug. 2011, here are a couple other graphs to consider.

RE: ipv4's last graph

-Original Message- From: Vincent Hoffman [mailto:jh...@unsane.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:44 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ipv4's last graph On 02/02/2011 17:22, Matthew Petach wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: So

RE: ipv4's last graph

-Original Message- From: Richard Barnes [mailto:richard.bar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:44 AM To: Tony Hain Cc: Vincent Hoffman; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ipv4's last graph Note that the ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE lines should all basically level out

RE: IPv6 - a noobs prespective

Franck Martin wrote: This is dual stack, my recommendation is disable IPv6 on your servers (so your clients will still talk to them on IPv4 only), and let your client goes IPv6 first. Once you understand what is happening, get on IPv6 on your servers. You don't have to disable IPv6 on the

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Tomas Podermanski wrote: Hi, It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first time when native IPv6 on google statistics (http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached 1%. Some might say it is tremendous success after 16 years of deploying IPv6 :-) T.

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Mike Jones wrote: On 20 November 2012 16:05, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Nov 20, 2012, at 08:45 , Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It is entirely possible that Google's numbers are artificially low for a number of reasons. AMS-IX publishes stats too:

RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration

Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who want to sustain their business. I agree with the first part; not sure I agree with the second part. Operators are all free to choose their

RE: Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications....

Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: If the entire deployment path automatically requires 84 layers of NAT sludge, that's what gets tested, cause it works for everybody. Hence my questions regarding the actual momentum behind end-to-end native IPv6

RE: How far must muni fiber operators protect ISP competition?

IMHO: level of clue is a minor point, as that can be bought. The fundamental issues for a project like this are funding, and intent. Well-funded organizations that lack intent are just problem children that like to tie up the courts to keep others from making progress. The target for a

RE: It's the end of the world as we know it -- REM

Lee Howard wrote: On 4/23/13 7:44 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: On 24/04/2013, at 8:10 AM, Andrew Latham lath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: I didn't see any mention of this Tony Hain paper: http

RE: AH or ESP

Merike Kaeo wrote: ... ESP-Null came about when folks realized AH could not traverse NATs. Thus the absolute reason why people should promote AH to kill off the 66nat nonsense. Just because you can't use it for IPv4 is no reason to avoid using it for IPv6 now and let its momentum suppress the

RE: Practical numbers for IPv6 allocations

Doug Barton wrote: [ I normally don't say this, but please reply to the list only, thanks. ] I've been a member of the let's not assume the IPv6 space is infinite school from day 1, even though I feel like I have a pretty solid grasp of the math. Others have alluded to some of the reasons

RE: IPv6 Deployment for the LAN

David Conrad wrote: Ok, lets start with not breaking the functionality we have today in IPv4. Once you get that working again we can look at new ideas (like RA) that might have utility. Let the new stuff live/die on it's own merits. The Internet is very good at sorting out the useful

RE: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Masataka Ohta wrote: Karl Auer wrote: : I've seen links with up to 15k devices where ARP represented : a significant part of the link usage, but most weren't (yet) IPv6. MLD noise around a router is as bad as ARP/ND noise. Possibly true, but that's another discussion. Then, you

RE: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Masataka Ohta Tony Hain wrote: It is because you avoid to face the reality of MLD. MLD != ND MLD == IGMP OK. ND ~= ARP Wrong, because ND requires MLD while ARP does not. Note the ~ ... And ARP requires media level broadcast, which ND does not. Not all media support broadcast

RE: using reserved IPv6 space

Randy Bush wrote: The fact that your prefix is a Secret Sauce that isn't known to the rest of the world won't matter much to an attacker. One 'ifconfig' on whatever beachhead machine the attacker has inside your net, and it's not Secret Sauce anymore, it's just another bottle of Thousand

RE: Big Temporary Networks

-Original Message- From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:21 PM To: David Miller Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks David Miller wrote: So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal

RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

-Original Message- From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmai...@ttec.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:11 AM To: George Herbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8 ... Baking in bogonity is bad. Really ??? If stack vendors had

RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

-Original Message- From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:37 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8 On 20/09/2012 20:14, Tony Hain wrote: Once the shift starts

RE: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

-Original Message- From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:13 AM To: Tony Hain Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8 On 21/09/2012 00:47, Tony Hain wrote: You are comparing IPv6

RE: IPv4 address length technical design

Sadiq Saif [mailto:sa...@asininetech.com] wrote: On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com wrote: Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32 bits for an IPv4 address? Cheers. I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 -

RE: IPv6 Wow

Nathan Ward wrote: ... 2) If Teredo relays are deployed close to the service (ie. content, etc.) then performance is almost equivalent to IPv4. 6to4 relies on relays being close to both the client and the server, which requires end users' ISPs to build at least *some* IPv6 infrastructure,

RE: IPv6 routing /48s

Jack Bates wrote: . Yes and no. The test that was being run used 6to4 addresses, so every 6to4 capable device did try to reach it via 6to4, since that is preferred over IPv4. If it had used non-6to4 addressing, then IPv4 would had been preferred on those hosts that didn't have non-6to4

RE: IPv6 Confusion

While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer, and you need

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Owen DeLong wrote: On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Hain wrote: While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host

RE: IPv6 Confusion

David Conrad wrote: On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Tony Hain wrote: Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. Unfortunately, I gather this isn't what end users or network operators want or expect. I suspect if we want to make real inroads towards IPv6 deployment, we'll need to spend

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Joe Provo wrote: This is highly amusing, as for myself and many folks the experience of these 'other protocols', when trying to run in open, scalable, and commercially-viable deployments, was to encapsulate in IP(v4) at the LAN/WAN boundary. It is no wonder that is the natural reaction to

RE: IPv6 Confusion

David Conrad wrote: Tony, On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Tony Hain wrote: This being a list of network engineers, there is a strong bias toward tools that allow explicit management of the network. This is a fine position, and those tools need to exist. There are others that don't want

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Justin Shore wrote: ... At this point I'm looking at doing 6to4 tunnels far into the future. You can forget that, as CGN will break 6to4. Get used to teredo (miredo), and if that is impeded don't be surprised when IPv6 over SOAP shows up. Tony

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Owen DeLong wrote: ... If you want SLAAC or RA or whatever, more power to you. Some installations do not. They want DHCP equivalent functionality with the same security model. It is always amusing when people equate DHCP with security... Outside of that, I do agree with you that the

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Leo Bicknell wrote: ... But, when DHCPv6 was developed the great minds of the world decided less functionality was better. There /IS NO OPTION/ to send a default route in DHCPv6, making DHCPv6 fully dependant on RA's being turned on! So the IETF and other great minds have totally removed the

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Daniel Senie wrote: ... No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has resulted in the situation where

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Leo Bicknell wrote: ... The last time I participated a working group chair told me operators don't know what they are talking about and went on to say they should be ignored. So did you believe him and stop participating? Seriously, the -ONLY- way the IETF can be effective is for the ops

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Randy Bush wrote: The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF has resulted in the situation where functionality is missing, because nobody stood up and did the work to make it happen. the ops gave up on the ietf because it did no good to participate. so the

RE: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

While I appreciate Bill's attempt to raise attention to the draft, I needed to update it anyway with the intent to greatly simplify things and hopefully clarify at the same time. Given the interest level in this thread, I will ask for comments here before publishing the updated I-D. Replace intro

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

-Original Message- From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@dougbarton.us] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:11 PM To: Jared Mauch Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arie Vayner Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6 On 05/09/2011 10:27, Jared Mauch wrote: I do feel the bar that Yahoo is setting is too high. There

RE: Yahoo and IPv6

Igor Gashinsky wrote: :: In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency related issues :: they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and publishing :: the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their content. They :: choose to hold their

RE: Reverse DNS RFCs and Recommendations

John Levine wrote: Right. Spam filtering depends on heuristics. Mail from hosts without matching forward/reverse DNS is overwhelmingly bot spam, so checking for it is a very effective heuristic. Leading digit is clearly in widespread use beyond 3com 1and1. One of the most effective

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

Lee Howard wrote: ... There is obviously a long tail of ip4 destinations, but nearly all of 500 of the Alexa global 500 have ip6 listeners, Do you have a data source for that? I see no indication of IPv6 listeners on 85% of the top sites. A slightly different metric, 44% of USA

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

-Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:16 PM To: joel jaeggli Cc: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu; Tony Hain; NANOG List Subject: Re: NAT64 and matching identities It would be way more than 2 if it were CNAME, methinks. Owen On Nov 22

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

. In other words, there are more dead names than there are records, and there are not any IPv6-only sites in that group. Tony -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:48 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: joel jaeggli; valdis.kletni...@vt.edu

RE: NAT64 and matching identities

file points to names that do not serve web content, so the entire 'top 1M' list is suspect. Tony -Original Message- From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-i...@tndh.net] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 3:50 PM To: 'Owen DeLong' Cc: sherfe...@amazon.com; 'NANOG List' Subject: RE: NAT64

RE: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

Ricky Beam wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd... Except for a) greed (we can *sell* larger slices) and b) demonstrable user want/need. How many residential, home networks,

RE: Naive IPv6 (was ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)

Brian Dickson wrote: And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence that every network (LAN) must be a /64. Get your history straight. The /64 was an outcome of operators deciding there was not enough room for hierarchy in the original proposal for the IPv6 address as 64

RE: turning on comcast v6

(Yes this is a top post ... get over it) Thank you Leo for doing such a great job in this scenario of explaining why acronym familiarity has much more to do with people's entrenched positions, than the actual network manageability they claim to be worried about. The hyperbolic nonsense in

RE: turning on comcast v6

Ryan Harden wrote: ... IMO, being able to hand out gateway information based on $criteria via DHCPv6 is a logical feature to ask for. Anyone asking for that isn't trying to tell you that RA is broken, that you're doing things wrong, or that their way of thinking is more important that yours.

RE: Need trusted NTP Sources

-Original Message- From: Notify Me [mailto:notify.s...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:54 AM To: Aled Morris Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Martin Hotze Subject: Re: Need trusted NTP Sources Raspberries! Not common currency here either, but let's see! While I would be using

RE: Dealing with abuse complaints to non-existent contacts

I have found the scaling is better if you make it the abusing providers problem to contact you. Whenever a range gets blocked, the bounce message tells the mail originator to take their money and find a new hosting provider that does not support/tolerate spam. When legitimate originators have

RE: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch

Randy wrote: I've enjoyed kernel hot patches (ksplice) until now. So my primary concern is that updates to systemd appears to require a full reboot: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=300166 Is systemd really like a 2nd 'kernel' -- demanding mass reboots every time a

RE: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:30 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house I think it's more than AC power issuewho knows what

RE: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)

Randy Bush wrote: but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149 ;)

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@colitti.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:47 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Chris Adams; NANOG Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:I claim

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:39 PM To: Chris Adams Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6 On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Chris Adams wrote: Android devices

RE: How long will it take to completely get rid of IPv4 or will it happen at all?

Bob Evans wrote: Our fundamental issue is that an IPv4 address has no real value as networks still give them away, it's pennies in your pocket. Everything of use needs to have a cost to motivate for change. Establishing that now won't create change it will first create greater conservation.

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ray Soucy wrote: Respectfully disagree on all points. The statement that Android would still not implement DHCPv6 NA, but it would implement DHCPv6 PD. is troubling because you're not even willing to entertain the idea for reasons that are rooted in idealism rather than pragmatism. In

RE: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

Ray Soucy wrote: I don't really feel I was trying to take things out of context, but the full quote would be: If there were consensus that delegating a prefix of sufficient size via DHCPv6 PD of a sufficient size is an acceptable substitute for stateful IPv6 addressing in the environments

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 7:24 AM To: Matt Palmer Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

snip What I read in your line of comments to Owen is that the service only does a header swap once and expects the application on the VM to compensate. In that case there is an impact on the cost of deployment and overall utility. 'compensate' ? do you mean 'get some extra information

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

Hugo Slabbert wrote: snip On this given point, though: Facebook -ne generic hosting platform True, but it does represent a business decision to choose IPv6. The relevant point here is that the NEXT facebook/twitter/snapchat/... is likely being pushed by clueless investors into outsourcing

RE: Multiple vendors' IPv6 issues

David, While I agree with you that there is no excuse for the general IPv6 brokenness across all vendors, they are just doing what participants on lists like this one tell them. NameShame may help a little, but until a large number of people get serious and stop prioritizing IPv4 in their

RE: AWS Elastic IP architecture

-Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:10 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: Hugo Slabbert; Matt Palmer; nanog list Subject: Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture On Mon, Jun 1, 2015

RE: Overlay broad patent on IPv6?

There is prior art here, and likely patents held by HP http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bound-dstm-exp-04 -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:10 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Fwd: Overlay

RE: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Owen DeLong wrote: I vote for a /24 lotto to get rid of the rest! That would take too long to get organized. Just suspend fees and policy requirements and give one to each of the first 400 requestors. Overall it would reduce costs related to evaluating need, so the lack of fee income would not

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Joe Maimon wrote: Jared Mauch wrote: This isn’t really a giant set of naysayers IMHO, but there is enough embedded logic in devices that it doesn’t make that much sense. Enough to scuttle all previous drafts. linux a little google comes up with this

RE: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

Randy Bush wrote: I am not ... It is long past time to move on, so getting rid of the distraction might help with those still holding out hope. i think that is unfair to the ipv6 fanboys (and girls). ipv6 use is increasing slowly. i bet it hits 10% by the time we retire. Are you

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

George Metz wrote: snip Split the difference, go with a /52 That's not splitting the difference. :) A /56 is half way between a /48 and a /64. That's 256 /64s, for those keeping score at home. It's splitting the difference between a /56 and a /48. I can't imagine short of

RE: Speaking of NTP...

I have had a consistent 10ms offset on a set of servers for the last 5 years. After extensive one-way tracing, it turns out there is a 20ms asymmetry within the Seattle Westin colo between HE Comcast, causing all the IPv6 peers appearing over the HE tunnel to be 10ms offset from everything

RE: Remember Internet-In-A-Box?

Ricky Beamwrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:32:19 -0400, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything DHCP does has to also be done via RA's. I blame the anti-DHCP crowd for a lot of things. RAs are just dumb. There's a reason IPv4 can do

RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Mel Beckman wrote: Owen, By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wrong with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Actually 30 years ago it was very difficult to get a /8 even for a US Gov organization. I have firsthand experience with being

RE: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

Dovid Bender wrote: > I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt > anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a > mystery. > No mystery ... It wastes bits that could otherwise be used to watch cat videos. ;) Tony

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Keenan Tims wrote: > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? > > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. > That's not neutral treatment from a policy

RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels

Ca By wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, chris wrote: > > > it really feels alot like what net neutrality was supposed to avoid. > > making a policy where there is different treatment of one set of bits > > over another > > > > "your ipv6 bits are bad but if you turn it off

RE: Netflix banning HE tunnels

Matthew, I was not complaining about the business model, or the need to comply with content provider requirements. The issue is the pathetic implementation choice that Netflix made when a trivial alternative was available. I agree that setting up rwhois and trusting the 3rd party tunnel

RE: www.RT.com bad dns record

Matt Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 06:36:23PM -0700, Ca By wrote: > > On Thursday, July 7, 2016, Spencer Ryan wrote: > > > > > Dotted-quad notation is completely valid, and works fine. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Presentation > > > > > >