Re: DoD IP Space

>> what i hope is that they publish the results of their experiment. a >> bit more depth in discussion in ripe community. > > https://bgp.he.net/AS8003#_prefixes those are not results of an experiment. those are some visible artifacts of (possibly part of) an experimental setup. what i meant

Re: DoD IP Space

>> anyone seeing roas in 11/8? i am not. > am not either, I would be curious to know if the RPKI discussion came up > for the prefixes in the run up to turning up this new service. what i hope is that they publish the results of their experiment. a bit more depth in discussion in ripe

Re: DoD IP Space

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:18 PM Randy Bush wrote: > anyone seeing roas in 11/8? i am not. > > am not either, I would be curious to know if the RPKI discussion came up for the prefixes in the run up to turning up this new service. I'd also love to know if they are planning to publish ROA :)

Re: DoD IP Space

anyone seeing roas in 11/8? i am not. randy --- ra...@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery

Re: DoD IP Space

On 4/24/21 3:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 8:26 AM Mel Beckman wrote: This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. You do understand that the addresses in question are not and have

Re: DoD IP Space

Carlos, It’s true even though the Internet is comprised of more than American providers and customers. A subsidy is a subsidy. It doesn’t have to go to everyone to “be true”. :) -mel > On Apr 26, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Carlos M. Martinez > wrote: > > That would be true if “the Internet” was

RE: DoD IP Space

On Behalf Of Tom Beecher Sent: April 26, 2021 9:32 AM To: Mel Beckman Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: DoD IP Space As long as that IP space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private space, as far as the Internet was concerned. The DoD allocation of 11/8 predates the concept of 'private

Re: DoD IP Space

That would be true if “the Internet” was still fully comprised of American providers and customers. That hasn’t been the case for a long, long time. On 26 Apr 2021, at 16:27, Mel Beckman wrote: Owen, Well, no. The Internet — meaning the ISPs and customers that comprise it — get substantial

Re: DoD IP Space

Owen, Well, no. The Internet — meaning the ISPs and customers that comprise it — get substantial subsidies to this day. But that’s no call for the government to be obtuse with the purposes of its IP space.

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 IP Space

On 26 Apr 2021, at 9:59 AM, Ca By wrote: > > ... > The fact that certain parties decided on their own that space not present in > the global routing table was 'fair game' or 'private' doesn't make them > correct, it simply makes them ill informed. > > My reading of this thread is that the

Re: DoD IP Space

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:36 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > As long as that IP space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private >> space, as far as the Internet was concerned. >> > > The DoD allocation of 11/8 predates the concept of 'private network space'. > > 11/8 was first assigned to the DoD

Re: DoD IP Space

> > Wish i was in the room when they turned it on. I hope they make a tiktok > of the expressions of everyone looking at the first data. [ joke ] > That would have been fascinating to see. (The technical bits, maybe not so much the Tik Tok.) Some chat threads with industry friends over the years

Re: DoD IP Space

> > As long as that IP space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private > space, as far as the Internet was concerned. > The DoD allocation of 11/8 predates the concept of 'private network space'. 11/8 was first assigned to the DoD in RFC 943 in April of 1985. The concept of IPv4 space for

Re: DoD IP Space

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0400, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote a message of 38 lines which said: > Let's see what will slowly appear in shodan.io and shadowserver.org My favorite (but remember it can be a gigantic honeypot) is the Ubiquiti router with the name

Re: DoD IP Space

On 25 Apr 2021, at 4:59 PM, Sabri Berisha mailto:sa...@cluecentral.net>> wrote: - On Apr 25, 2021, at 2:24 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: Hi, I think I’d characterize it, rather, as a possible privatization of public property. This comment sparked my

Re: DoD IP Space

In the positive side of things, guess we will see IPv6 usage. Joe Klein On Sun, Apr 25, 2021, 6:11 PM John Curran wrote: > Sronan - > > I made no claims other than pointing out that IP address blocks in the > ARIN registry are subject to ARIN policies. > > ARIN was formed specifically so that

Re: DoD IP Space

Sronan - I made no claims other than pointing out that IP address blocks in the ARIN registry are subject to ARIN policies. ARIN was formed specifically so that the Internet community could engage in self-regulation for IP number resources; to wit: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP

Re: DoD IP Space

- On Apr 25, 2021, at 2:24 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: Hi, > I think I’d characterize it, rather, as a possible privatization of public > property. This comment sparked my curiosity. Does ARIN consider IP space to be property? One could argue both ways: 1. Whomever "owns" a

Re: DoD IP Space

Randy - We don’t generally speak about specific customers – but I do acknowledge this is a bit of an unusual case... There was no exchange at all, but rather the US DoD wanted to make sure that (if at some point in the future) they had excess IPv4 resources that the DoD retained the ability

Re: DoD IP Space

On 4/25/21 12:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote: john, my altzheimer's device tells me that some years back there was a documented written agreement between arin and the dod along the lines of dod getting a large swath of ipv6 space[0] in exchange for agreeing to return[1] or otherwise put into public

Re: DoD IP Space

john, my altzheimer's device tells me that some years back there was a documented written agreement between arin and the dod along the lines of dod getting a large swath of ipv6 space[0] in exchange for agreeing to return[1] or otherwise put into public use a half dozen ipv4 /8s. could you

Re: DoD IP Space

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 11:27 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of > transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going > to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — > purpose can be

Re: DoD IP Space

So you are claiming that ARIN has jurisdiction over DoD IP space? Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:13 AM, John Curran wrote: > >  Sronan - > > I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as > this will avoid propagating existing misinformation in the

Re: DoD IP Space

Sronan - For avoidance of doubt (and to save folks some digging), I will observe that the number resources associated with the U.S. DoD handle I referenced do not include DoD’s legacy IPv4 number resource holdings.However, there are indeed are registration agreements with the US DoD that

Re: DoD IP Space

Sronan - I’d suggest asking rather than making assertions when it comes to ARIN, as this will avoid propagating existing misinformation in the community. Many US government agencies, including the US Department of Defense, have signed registration services agreements with ARIN. From

Re: DoD IP Space

On 24 Apr 2021, at 6:45 PM, William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 8:26 AM Mel Beckman mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote: This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. You do

Re: DoD IP Space

Except these DoD blocks don’t fall under ARIM justification, as they predate ARIN. It is very likely that the DoD has never and will never sign any sort of ARIN agreement. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 25, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Mark, > > ARIN rules require every IP space

RE: DoD IP Space

Herrin Sent: April 24, 2021 6:46 PM To: Mel Beckman Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: DoD IP Space On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 8:26 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of > transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum.

Re: DoD IP Space

Mr. Beckman - As noted by Mark Foster below, the listed contact information for the DoD address blocks is indeed correct, and (as you yourself confirmed) may be used to successfully contact the organization. ARIN does not have the mandate to force any organization “to deal” with any other,

Re: DoD IP Space

Hi Mel, I'd expect ARIN to hold them to account for complying with ARIN rules, if they are subject.  In years gone by, I have been able to contact US DoD organisations using published contact methods to address technical issues. So even if there's technical non-compliance (which i'd agree

Re: DoD IP Space

Is the DoD still the owner? On Sun 25 Apr 2021 at 10:24, Bill Woodcock wrote: On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: It’s a direct militarization of a civilian utility. I think I’d characterize it, rather, as a possible privatization of public property. If someone builds a

Re: DoD IP Space

> On Apr 25, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > It’s a direct militarization of a civilian utility. I think I’d characterize it, rather, as a possible privatization of public property. If someone builds a house in the middle of a public park, it’s not _what they’re doing in the house_

Re: DoD IP Space

Mark, ARIN rules require every IP space holder to publish accurate — and effective — Admin, Tech, and Abuse POCs. The DOD hasn’t done this, as I pointed out, and as you can test for yourself. Your expectation that the DOD will “generally comply with all of the expected norms” is sorely naive,

Re: DoD IP Space

On 25/04/2021 3:24 am, Mel Beckman wrote: This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — purpose can be known. The secret

Re: DoD IP Space

Jason, The government subsidizes farms, too. That doesn’t mean we let them be militarized. Logic. :) -mel On Apr 24, 2021, at 4:35 PM, Jason Biel wrote:  The internet that is subsidized by that same Government Logic. On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 18:19 Mel Beckman

Re: DoD IP Space

-Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mel > Beckman > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 4:17 PM > To: William Herrin > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: DoD IP Space > > Bill, > > It’s the INTERNET that is civilian, not the IP space. As long as that IP

RE: DoD IP Space

To: William Herrin Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: DoD IP Space Bill, It’s the INTERNET that is civilian, not the IP space. As long as that IP space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private space, as far as the Internet was concerned. Now DoD has moved it into the civilian Internet

Re: DoD IP Space

The internet that is subsidized by that same Government Logic. On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 18:19 Mel Beckman wrote: > Bill, > > It’s the INTERNET that is civilian, not the IP space. As long as that IP > space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private space, as far as the > Internet was

Re: DoD IP Space

Bill, It’s the INTERNET that is civilian, not the IP space. As long as that IP space was isolated to the .mil network, it was private space, as far as the Internet was concerned. Now DoD has moved it into the civilian Internet, and I treat them as potentially malicious as I do any other

Re: DoD IP Space

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 8:26 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of > transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. You do understand that the addresses in question are not and have never been "civilian." They came into DoD's

Re: DoD IP Space

"John Curran" Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:53:26 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space In this specific case the group of self-described DOD network cowboys who, due to lack of transparency and public oversight, could be doing all manner of nefarious things with this IP space. It can’t

Re: DoD IP Space

_ From: "Mel Beckman" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org, "John Curran" Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:37:42 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space I will not permit traffic into my network whose proven-malicious IP space owner is devious about it

Re: DoD IP Space

uot; Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:37:42 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space I will not permit traffic into my network whose proven-malicious IP space owner is devious about its purpose. You can, if you want. -mel On Apr 24, 2021, at 8:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Huh? --

Re: DoD IP Space

icon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> From: "Mel Beckman" To: "John Curran" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:24:45 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you

Re: DoD IP Space

Huh? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Mel Beckman" To: "John Curran" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:24:45 AM Subject: Re: DoD IP Space

Re: DoD IP Space

This doesn’t sound good, no matter how you slice it. The lack of transparency with a civilian resource is troubling at a minimum. I’m going to bogon this space as a defensive measure, until its real — and detailed — purpose can be known. The secret places of our government have proven

Re: DoD IP Space

As noted - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/24/pentagon-internet-address-mystery/#click=https://t.co/mVh26yBq9G FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:35 AM, John Curran wrote:  Tom – Most definitely: lack of

Re: DoD IP Space

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:54 AM j k wrote: > > Two questions... > > 1. How many on this list already have dual-stack or IPv6 only in operation? we're coming up on the 10yr anniversary of 'world ipv6 day'.. so I would HOPE 'lots' :) probably that's not entirely a good 'hope' :( > 2. If you are

Re: DoD IP Space

Two questions... 1. How many on this list already have dual-stack or IPv6 only in operation? 2. If you are running IPv4 only, and a major service was to switch to IPv6 only,.. a. How fast would you move to a dual-stack of IPv6 only? b. What would it impact your customers? c. How

Re: DoD IP Space

> On Feb 26, 2021, at 7:50 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > IPv6. The protocol of the future, and always will be :) “Why be part of the solution when there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem?”

Re: DoD IP Space

I remember. And I have the HE.net Guru Badge to prove it :) And don’t forget the World IPv6 Launch in 2012. IPv6. The protocol of the future, and always will be :) -mel via cell > On Feb 26, 2021, at 3:49 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > > On 2/13/21 18:24, Mark Foster wrote: > >> So the

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/13/21 18:24, Mark Foster wrote: So the business case will be the 'killer app' or perhaps 'killer service' that's IPv6-only and that'll provide a business reason. But chicken and egg.. who wants to run a service that's IPv6-only and miss out on such a big userbase? Am I the only one

Re: DoD IP Space

In my humble but correct opinion one of the things which sabotages these efforts is an aversion to any solution which doesn't feel like it would work quickly and decisively (ask Bezos to offer a discount to anyone using IPv6 to order on Amazon???) I remember back in ~2003 on the Anti-Spam

Re: DoD IP Space

> it’s unclear if there’s been any systematic look-back or institutional > learning coming out of the entire experience. i am always impressed by optimism in the face of cold reality

Re: DoD IP Space

1993 matches my recollections as well. Network Working Group S. Bradner Internet draftHarvard University A. Mankin

Re: DoD IP Space

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:36 PM Joe Loiacono wrote: > V8! heh ... wow hadn't thought of that for a while ... ... Slaps forehead and says: "Wow, I could've had a V8!"

Re: DoD IP Space

V8!  heh ... wow hadn't thought of that for a while ... On 2/15/2021 3:39 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:51:51 -0800, Sabri Berisha said: Well, considering this RIPE article that talked about IPv7 already..

Re: DoD IP Space

Streams Transport and PIP. Good grief. V7 was Robert Ullman’s CATNIP. He wanted to sell hardware to everyone, and V7 was the interchange protocol between IPv4, IPX, and CLNS. Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > On Feb 15, 2021, at 12:41 PM, Valdis Klētnieks >

Re: DoD IP Space

It’s Dead, Jim — Speaking of V8. I’m glad Outlook had a Delete button. > On Feb 15, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:51:51 -0800, Sabri Berisha said: > >> Well, considering this RIPE article that talked about IPv7 already.. >> >>

Re: DoD IP Space

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:51:51 -0800, Sabri Berisha said: > Well, considering this RIPE article that talked about IPv7 already.. > > https://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/ripe-org-closed/1993/msg00024.html Bonus points for those who remember/know where v5 and v8 were from :) pgpdrYkPJgCF0.pgp

Re: DoD IP Space

Actually John - IPng started out being called IPv7, but we caught the mistake and renamed it IPv6.  Whew :-) Geoff On 2/15/21 8:33 AM, John Curran wrote: On 15 Feb 2021, at 2:01 AM, Mark Andrews > wrote: ... Complain to your vendors about not implementing RFC 8305, RFC

Re: DoD IP Space

- On Feb 15, 2021, at 9:28 AM, mel wrote: Hi, > LOL! Well, Mike says “definitely at least 1993”, whereas Wikipedia itself says > that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Mike, to my knowledge, has never admitted > being wrong. So I’m going with Mike :) Well, considering this RIPE article that

Re: DoD IP Space

LOL! Well, Mike says “definitely at least 1993”, whereas Wikipedia itself says that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Mike, to my knowledge, has never admitted being wrong. So I’m going with Mike :) I think it was Al Gore who first proposed IPv6, right Mike? :) -mel beckman On Feb 15, 2021, at

Re: DoD IP Space

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:49 AM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 22:25:56 -0800, William Herrin said: > > This particular problem could be quickly resolved if the OSes still > > getting updates were updated to default name resolution to prioritize > > the IPv4 addresses instead. That

Re: DoD IP Space

On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 22:25:56 -0800, William Herrin said: > This particular problem could be quickly resolved if the OSes still > getting updates were updated to default name resolution to prioritize > the IPv4 addresses instead. That would allow broken IPv6 > configurations to exist without

Re: DoD IP Space

On 15 Feb 2021, at 2:01 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > ... > Complain to your vendors about not implementing RFC 8305, RFC 6724, and > RFC 7078. RFC 8305 or RFC6724 + RFC 7078 would fix your issue. > > Thats Happy Eyeballs and tuneable address selection rules. Mark - You’ve properly

Re: DoD IP Space

On Feb 11, 2021, at 9:01 PM, Kenneth J. Dupuis wrote: > > 1995? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 > > On Feb 11, 2021 8:51 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote: > > > >> IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete > >> protocol. > > So, in

Re: DoD IP Space

1995? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6On Feb 11, 2021 8:51 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote: > >> IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol. > So, in your mind, IPv4 was "obsolete" in 1996 -- almost three years > before IPv6

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/15/21 09:59, na...@jack.fr.eu.org wrote: Yet both ps5 and xbox series x have ipv6 support A console released in 2013 do not, but its successor released in 2020 have it How wild is this, I wonder why ? IPv6 also runs on hardware that was shipped as far back as 2003, if not

Re: DoD IP Space

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > Complain to your vendors about not implementing RFC 8305, RFC 6724, and > RFC 7078. RFC 8305 or RFC6724 + RFC 7078 would fix your issue. > > Thats Happy Eyeballs and tuneable address selection rules. > > You don’t have to perform the naive

Re: DoD IP Space

Yet both ps5 and xbox series x have ipv6 support A console released in 2013 do not, but its successor released in 2020 have it How wild is this, I wonder why ? On 2/15/21 5:25 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: I mean, there's a reason that in 2021, PS4 still does not support IPv6. Mark.

Re: DoD IP Space

> On 15 Feb 2021, at 17:25, William Herrin wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 8:27 PM Mark Tinka wrote: >> Dropping a few feet from cloud nine, there, really, is no other thing >> that will facilitate or hold back the adoption of IPv6, like money. > > Well actually, that's not entirely true.

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/15/21 08:25, William Herrin wrote: Well actually, that's not entirely true. One thing holding back IPv6 is the unfortunately routine need to turn it off in order to get one or another IPv4 thing back working again. Like the disney thing earlier in this thread. Or like my experience

Re: DoD IP Space

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 8:27 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > Dropping a few feet from cloud nine, there, really, is no other thing > that will facilitate or hold back the adoption of IPv6, like money. Well actually, that's not entirely true. One thing holding back IPv6 is the unfortunately routine need

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/14/21 22:34, Sabri Berisha wrote: You are 100% Correct. Perhaps we can get Jeff Bezos to give 25% extra off at the next Cyber Monday event to those accessing amazon.com via IPv6. That will not only drive IPv6 deployment at eyeball networks, it's a feasible plan as well. IF good ol'

Re: DoD IP Space

- On Feb 14, 2021, at 11:56 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Hi, > hint: that idea is from the late '90s. the next bright idea for what > would help ipv6 take over the internet was 3gpp. it's been a long line > of things which would make ipv6 take off. You are 100% Correct. Perhaps we

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/14/21 21:56, Randy Bush wrote: hint: that idea is from the late '90s. the next bright idea for what would help ipv6 take over the internet was 3gpp. it's been a long line of things which would make ipv6 take off. and at least ten million messages on mailing lists such as this. and

Re: DoD IP Space

> Perhaps it's time that we made good friends with the folk accelerating > pr0n, and did a deal with them where someone's fetish was only > available over IPv6. hint: that idea is from the late '90s. the next bright idea for what would help ipv6 take over the internet was 3gpp. it's been a long

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/14/21 04:24, Mark Foster wrote: So the business case will be the 'killer app' or perhaps 'killer service' that's IPv6-only and that'll provide a business reason. But chicken and egg.. who wants to run a service that's IPv6-only and miss out on such a big userbase? Perhaps it's time

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/14/21 02:00, scott wrote: I would be looking for a new job and it is a much larger network than 2 routers is a big city.  :)    Sabri Berisha was correct: "The true enemy here is mid-level management that refuses to prioritize deployment of IPv6.   What we should be discussing is

RE: DoD IP Space

- From: NANOG On Behalf Of scott Sent: Sunday, 14 February 2021 1:01 pm To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: DoD IP Space On 2/12/2021 8:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On 2/12/21 21:56, scott wrote: >> >> 100% agreed! Been whining about that here many times. I have been >> try

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/12/2021 8:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 2/12/21 21:56, scott wrote: 100% agreed!  Been whining about that here many times.  I have been trying to get IPv6 going for a long time, but the above stopped my plans.  One thing I mentioned recently, though, is we just got a $BIGCUSTOMER and

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/12/21 21:56, scott wrote: 100% agreed!  Been whining about that here many times.  I have been trying to get IPv6 going for a long time, but the above stopped my plans.  One thing I mentioned recently, though, is we just got a $BIGCUSTOMER and their requirement was we do IPv6.  So

Re: DoD IP Space

--- sa...@cluecentral.net wrote: From: Sabri Berisha The true enemy here is mid-level management that refuses to prioritize deployment of IPv6. What we should be discussing is how best to approach that problem. It's where ops and corporate politics overlap.

Re: DoD IP Space

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:30 AM Tom Beecher wrote: >> >> For most networks there is almost no pain in enabling IPv6. > > > A startup vendor, formed by long time industry veterans, released brand new > products inside of the last 8 years that did not yet have IPv6 support > because their

Re: DoD IP Space

> > For most networks there is almost no pain in enabling IPv6. > A startup vendor, formed by long time industry veterans, released brand new products inside of the last 8 years that did not yet have IPv6 support because their software, also created by them from scratch, did not yet support it.

Re: DoD IP Space

Eric, I’d argue that does fall within the definition of incompetence called out by Izaac. I’m talking about how you run out of RFC-1918 space (if you choose to use it in the first place) without incompetence. Owen > On Feb 11, 2021, at 09:15 , Eric Kuhnke wrote: > > You don't, you

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/12/21 06:41, Randy Bush wrote: iij joined in '97. and helped others who asked. but i'm from the rainy pacific northwest (of the states). we don't try to push water uphill. As my Gambian friend would say, "Lead a horse to water, and teach it how to fish". My first join was in

Re: DoD IP Space

>> i must say i am impressed that the ipv6 must be deployed now and it >> solves it all religion is still being shouted from the street corner >> 25 years on. it is as if the shouters think they will convince any >> body or change anything. folk will deploy X when they perceive that >> the

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/12/21 02:51, Randy Bush wrote: i must say i am impressed that the ipv6 must be deployed now and it solves it all religion is still being shouted from the street corner 25 years on. it is as if the shouters think they will convince any body or change anything. folk will deploy X when

Re: DoD IP Space

Hi, On 11/02/2021 13:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:50:56 -0800 > From: Doug Barton >[...] On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote> >> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely >> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a

Re: DoD IP Space

On Jan 23, 2021, at 11:32 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > Personally, I would > argue that a full implementation of IPv6 means that v4 could be phased out > without > adverse effect on the production network. I like that definition.

Re: DoD IP Space

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:52 PM Izaac wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:53:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > > In other words, it proves the exact opposite of your assertion. > > Golly. Do you want to tell the 1M+ AWS customers that the services they > paid ~$280B for last year don't work,

Re: DoD IP Space

> On 12 Feb 2021, at 12:41, Izaac wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:29:42AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Ridiculous… TCP/IP was designed to be a peer to peer system where each >> endpoint was uniquely >> addressable whether reachable by policy or not. > > I think that is a dramatic

Re: DoD IP Space

On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote: IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol. So, in your mind, IPv4 was "obsolete" in 1996 -- almost three years before IPv6 was even specified?  Fascinating. I could be in no way mistaken for an IPv4/NAT apologist, but

Re: DoD IP Space

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:53:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > In other words, it proves the exact opposite of your assertion. Golly. Do you want to tell the 1M+ AWS customers that the services they paid ~$280B for last year don't work, or should I? -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \/ |\

Re: DoD IP Space

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:29:42AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > Ridiculous… TCP/IP was designed to be a peer to peer system where each > endpoint was uniquely > addressable whether reachable by policy or not. I think that is a dramatic over-simplification of the IP design criteria -- as it was

Re: DoD IP Space

i must say i am impressed that the ipv6 must be deployed now and it solves it all religion is still being shouted from the street corner 25 years on. it is as if the shouters think they will convince any body or change anything. folk will deploy X when they perceive that the cost:benefit is in

Re: DoD IP Space

> On 12 Feb 2021, at 10:25, Tim Howe wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:05:51 +1100 > Mark Andrews wrote: > >> Almost everything you buy today works with IPv6. Even the crappy $50 home >> router does IPv6. > > You're testing very different gear than I am. I have not found > this to

  1   2   3   >