As a interesting test; I temporarily ran a public wireless network
with only IPv6 connectivity for a short while. Now I couldn't really
find a lot of information online about best practices for this.
Therefore I turned off my DHCP for the subnet and continued to perform
route advertisements with
cgnat is an expensive mess. It was when it was defined and it has been
ever since. No need to wait to 2026 to know that. Internet global
leadership has been saying that for years.
C
On 15/06/2020 12:29, Paul Mansfield wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 14:58, Denesh Bhabuta :: UKNOF
wrote:
Play
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 14:58, Denesh Bhabuta :: UKNOF
wrote:
> Play nicely folks.. this is UKNOF, not UKNOT.. just in case anyone had
> forgotten. ;-)
>
> > On 22 May 2020, at 14:15, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> >
> > https://imgflip.com/i/42fn8j
By the way, I wasn't offended in any way by Neil's
I'm saying that address space is a limited resource, and as such it cannot be
expected to be free. Cheap, maybe, but one way or another it will always cost
something; even staking a free claim isn't free. This is a general principle
that applies universally, and I recall Daniel's note as a
On 26/05/2020 22:59, Pete Stevens wrote:
I wonder what the absolute minimum set if before $ultra-cheap-broken-isp
just goes ipv6+nat64 and doesn't care about breaking other stuff. Free
broadband that comes with your mobile contract / cornflakes could be a
candidate.
I'd suggest the big
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 2:22 AM Per Bilse wrote:
>
> I'm saying that address space is a limited resource, and as such it cannot be
> expected to be free. Cheap, maybe, but one way or another it will always
> cost something; even staking a free claim isn't free. This is a general
> principle
On Wed May 27, 2020 at 12:27:49pm +0100, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> according to the SOA for bbc.net.uk there should be a b...@bbc.co.uk
> who can answer why!
Because I don't remember writing IPv6 support in my (perl) load balancing DNS
server :)
BBC have, however, run IPv6 on www.bbc.co.uk at
On 2020-05-26 15:13, Paul Mansfield wrote:
Meanwhile, are there any ISPs who run a DNS64/NAT64 as a service? It
strikes me that it would be a good exercise/practise.
go6lab runs a public DNS64/NAT64 service.. just change your nameserver
to their IPv6 nameserver and enjoy free access to the
> I view the v6 transition like the how to get rid of IE6 transition.
This seems like a fairly good comparison. Just like with IE, we're stuck in
a catch-22 until something blows IPv4 out of the water.
There's no incentive for making consumer devices support IPv6 until ISPs
stop supporting v4,
Lots of chickens and eggs cycles to resolve. What is not clear to me is
whether today people running hosts with no or incomplete IPv6 support
know IPv6 is something they should be on top of. That at least would be
progress. As for many years they were being told by their ISPs / Vendors
/
Will Hargrave wrote on 27/05/2020 12:46:
I’m sure you know this but: what this misses is the vast amount of their
actual CDN traffic, i.e. the actual bulk of the content. I don’t think
i’m giving away secrets when I say there is substantial IPv6 traffic there.
Most people will never email
On 27 May 2020, at 12:28, Pete Stevens wrote:
That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information
about what improvements are needed. Netflix is listed,
but I've got no clue what they are expected to do to improve their
v6 connectivity.
The first fails our checker
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 17:12, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> One would be regulation in some manner, eg it becomes part
Ofcom last mentioned ipv6 in 2017 as far as I can tell
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/search?query=ipv6=
> So to answer original question - set up a process that will
> result in a
That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information about what
improvements are needed. Netflix is listed,
but I've got no clue what they are expected to do to improve their v6
connectivity.
Netflix use Google for email, and Google are missing some reverse DNS on
their IPv6
ah, bbc.co.uk does have IPv6 addresses
$ dig +short bbc.co.uk
2a04:4e42:200::81
2a04:4e42:600::81
2a04:4e42:400::81
2a04:4e42::81
but not www.bbc.co.uk which is CNAME to bbc.net.uk
according to the SOA for bbc.net.uk there should be a b...@bbc.co.uk
who can answer why!
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:56, Paul Bone wrote:
> C:\Users\paul.bone>nslookup www.bbc.co.uk
I seem to recall the BBC did have a v6 enabled front end at one point.
presumably the licence fee needs to increase before they can afford to
run both ;-)
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:56, Dave Bell wrote:
>> https://ipv6.watch/
>
> That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information about
> what improvements are needed. Netflix is listed, but I've got no clue what
> they are expected to do to improve their v6 connectivity.
agreed.
This is one that has always surprised me:
C:\Users\paul.bone>nslookup www.bbc.co.uk
Server: UnKnown
Address: 10.234.120.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:www.bbc.net.uk
Addresses: 212.58.237.254
212.58.233.254
Aliases: www.bbc.co.uk
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:54, Paul
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 11:49, Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> I was surprised how many services aren't but you'd think they could/should
> be
> https://ipv6.watch/
That is quite interesting, but could really do with some information about
what improvements are needed. Netflix is listed, but I've got
Paul Mansfield wrote on 27/05/2020 11:47:
I was surprised how many services aren't but you'd think they could/should be
https://ipv6.watch/
this should give some indication of the complexity, and therefore the
cost, of service availability over ipv6.
Nick
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:59:28PM +0100, Pete Stevens wrote:
> > Unfortunately the same applies to the majority of consumers, who
> > realistically don't care how their internet works as long as they
> > can access Facebook/Candy Crush/.
>
> A v6 only end user ISP can already access anything
Unfortunately the same applies to the majority of consumers, who realistically
don't care how their internet works as long
as they can access Facebook/Candy Crush/.
A v6 only end user ISP can already access anything behind cloudflare,
facebook, google, youtube, netflix but not twitter.
I
DNS64/NAT64?
Ou experience is limited to server applications, but these rarely
initiate outbound conections (since the clients almost never have
routable public IPv4 addresses anyway) and almost everything is https so
this works really well.
3 problems with DNS64:
-Wider DNSSEC adoption
On 25/05/2020 20:02, Paul Mansfield wrote:
Looking back at Y2K, would all that effort have been put in to kill
off old services and tidy up all the cr*p if there hadn't been a fixed
deadline? As to the Jan 19 2038 problem, how many of us hope to be
retired by then, or will we be dragged out of
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:02 AM Per Bilse wrote:
>
> Daniel Karrenberg (founder/CTO RIPE NCC) has for decades said "I sell IP
> address space". The price has historically been low, but it has always been
> a finite resource, and that goes for IPv6 address space too (when the RIPE
> NCC opened
Steve Deering's Hourglass presentation is still a classic. Whether you
use v4 or v6. That's a nice recollection of him and 1997.
The thing is by 2000 we had to run with IPv6 transition plan because
there was zero chance of getting a v6 that was v4 wire compatible
through the IETF. That plan
Paul,
There is some resources on the UK v6 Council website regarding v6 transition
tech.
https://www.ipv6.org.uk/2018/10/26/ipv6-transition-workshop-sep-2018/
The v6 business case for EE using 464xlat can be paraphrased as:
We need NAT, with 464xlat for every 100G of ISP traffic I need only 30G
On Tue May 26, 2020 at 03:42:40PM +0100, Paul Thornton wrote:
> I don't think there is an easy solution to any of this
There may be tweeks that could help it along.
One would be regulation in some manner, eg it becomes part
of the regulations a biz may be subject to, or a requirement
if they
We had a mailman blockage last week which got fixed on Friday,
confirming all resolved now.
Keith
On 5/23/20 10:03 AM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Listmaster we appear to have IPV6 lag
>
> Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=uknofmailman.vs.mythic-beasts.com)
> by
Some very valid points Paul, thanks for that.
I'm probably being a little guilty of focusing on the verticals that I
mostly work in with regard to the competitive element so yes I agree a moot
point at this stage - I have no interest in the residential market, and
with the way we deliver services
Daniel Karrenberg (founder/CTO RIPE NCC) has for decades said "I sell IP
address space". The price has historically been low, but it has always been a
finite resource, and that goes for IPv6 address space too (when the RIPE NCC
opened up for IPv6 address space, it took half an hour to receive
On 26/05/2020 14:39, Paul Bone wrote:
ISP A, for example, started up 2-3 years ago and received their /22
from RIPE but now, through growth they need more to service new
customers. They now have to pay a lot of money (in relative terms) to
obtain more IPv4 addresses. To pay for these IP
> Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
> make do with fewer addresses.
>The good news at the moment is that the RIPE waiting list is quite short:
This is still very short sighted and not sustainable for business growth.
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 15:06, Rob Evans
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 14:55, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
> make do with fewer addresses.
we're coming back to full circle to the suggestion where businesses
should list IPv4 as a taxable asset, or, like DNS, should have to pay
the
ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a waiting list
for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.
Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
make do with fewer addresses.
The good news at the moment is that the RIPE
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:41 AM Paul Bone wrote:
[...]
> ISP B is just starting out and has to pay RIPE fees and get on a waiting list
> for a /24. All the while being unable to provide IPv4 services.
Or go to a broker and buy a /24 or whatever from a network that can
make do with fewer
I completely agree that the end user will generally have very little or no
knowledge of how their connectivity is done underneath - as long as
Whatsapp and Facebook work, then most are happy!
But I do think the case for hanging onto IPv4 is potentially very damaging
to the ISP industry, and I
I think it's a case of the notion of connectivity being changed faster than
many other things. How connectivity is achieved is ultimately not important to
most people, and which addressing scheme is used is a detail hardly anybody
even knows about.
When I first got involved, I didn't have IP
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 09:52, Daniel Ankers wrote:
> The thing about Y2K and 2038 is that they are absolutely fixed dates. No
> amount of arguing or pleading would move them. On the other hand, if a flag
> day for IPv4 shutoff was chosen it would be arbitrary and could, if needed,
> be
On 26 May 2020, at 12:14, Nick Hilliard wrote:
ipv4 will fade when it becomes more expensive and troublesome than
ipv6. If we attempt to short-cut this process and kill ipv4 with
policy and artificial deadlines, it will will fail just like it failed
with the ISO / OSI debacle all those years
Per Bilse wrote on 26/05/2020 12:03:
Money talks, it's that simple. Until the current state of affairs
becomes less profitable (one way or another), the current state will
prevail.
this
ipv4 will fade when it becomes more expensive and troublesome than ipv6.
If we attempt to
I'm certainly not opposed to making technical progress. I once arranged a
full day's workshop hosted by Steve Deering to evangelize, but I have come to
realize that it was 20+ years too early. (Amusing anecdote: it wasn't really
on Deering's radar to do these things, but he had trouble
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 01:12, Paul Mansfield
wrote:
> So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
> the only connectivity offered to the end user? The thing is that
> without target dates and deadlines, things will drag on indefinitely.
> I'll admit I wanted to
This is where managed service providers can make a difference.
My current day job is for a business ISP who also offers a lot of MSP
services.
IPv6 only services should be up and running for our guest and managed
services by the summer depending on current restrictions being lifted (have
On 25/05/2020 20:02, Paul Mansfield wrote:
So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
the only connectivity offered to the end user?
No.
Firstly, I'm a big IPv6 advocate, however...
Secondly - with my business ISP hat on, businesses are only very, very
rarely asking
So is it actually feasible to announce *any* date when IPv6 will be
the only connectivity offered to the end user? The thing is that
without target dates and deadlines, things will drag on indefinitely.
I'll admit I wanted to deliberately put up a challenging statement,
but not to troll, really.
Dear Per,
When is too late now? The original transition plans had to be revised
at IETF around 2008 largely because it was only "just before it's too
late". So there has been a reprieve of a hard withdrawl for an extra 12
years. But can you say now when would you know if you left it just
Per Bilse wrote on 25/05/2020 10:17:
IPv6 remained a draft standard, accompanied by various additional RFCs
and related documents, until it was finally consolidated in RFC8200 a
few years ago; the process took nearly 20 years, and the promotion to
full standard was partly prompted by an
When I saw this thread starting I thought to myself "No, no, no ... this will
never end well." I decided to stay out of it, but Neil raised an important
point, namely that things are more complicated than what meets the eye. The
state of IPv6 software in the field isn't good, and much of it
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:41 PM Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Anyone who wants to turn off IPV4 in their own world can do it now - so JFDI
> Paul, nobody is stopping anyone, but I'll thank you to fuck off if you think
> I'll let folks dictate how things should be for others when their own ability
>
Listmaster we appear to have IPV6 lag
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=uknofmailman.vs.mythic-beasts.com)
by uknofmailman.vs.mythic-beasts.com with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from )
id 1jc6g3-0005eH-10; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:21:27 +0100
Received: from
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 15:26, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> > And whilst some on here seem to think that ridiculing peoples opinions and
> > suggestions is acceptable, I think that Paul (Mansfield) has made a valid
> > suggestion that deserves to be discussed in an adult manner.
>
> Sorry as its
> On 22 May 2020, at 12:00, Christian wrote:
>
>>
>> I am currently building a new network for a small ISP and we are going to be
>> running IPv6 only services with DNS64/NAT64 as much as possible, but at this
>> stage we still do require some public IPv4 for business with on-prem
>>
Your welcome Will; I'm glad my forthright comment saved you having to learn to
play the guitarrón and join a different Mariachi band.
But on your question - God no.
I would have been a consultant to the clowns^w civil servants who would have
ended up running it and charged the taxpayer an
Imagine having business practices deemed so unfair that even a Tory
government’s regulator saw fit to step on them! Not a great look!
Did you not fancy the job of running the nationalised British National
Broadband PTT or Post Office Internet or whatever it was going to be
called? I thought
You mean like this Will?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2019/fairer-prices-for-broadband-customers
and nobody with half a brain thought Corbyn's idea (and not just this one but
all of them) would make any service issues, or anything else better.
Neil.
On
Until EU says they can't be exported to a "third country" (like using a
.eu domain for instance) :-)
On 22/05/2020 16:54, Neil J. McRae wrote:
On the government list of Brexit issues:
1: Be able to import food
2: Be able to import Medicine
3: Be able to import Beer/wine
4: Be able to land
On 22/05/2020 14:23, Paul Bone wrote:
>I am tempted to argue that anybody without a public IP is not actually
>being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
>
>So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
>"Internet access" should be sold as a
Pete Stevens said:
> Maybe it's impossible to legislate to make the tax not avoidable, but
> tax avoidance isn't something I've experience with.
Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion isn't.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its
How long until Hard Brexit?
On 22/05/2020 16:34, Neil J. McRae wrote:
And this wouldn't change that, nor anything else. It would be a legal tax
efficient way to avoid Pete's tax.
Neil.
On 22/05/2020, 16:30, "Tim Chown" wrote:
> On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
Pete - I'm impressed with your perseverance on this idea even though it's got
more flees than a Worf's pet targ.
all the cable systems are registered in Bermuda, yet none of them go anywhere
near the place
On 22/05/2020, 16:39, "Pete Stevens" wrote:
> Why would that happen Pete?
Why would that happen Pete? Nobody would even know that you had even done it.
It wouldn't take a very bright tax inspector to notice that she's bought
an internet service from ISP A which included an IPv4 address, and ISP A
doesn't pay any IPv4 address tax because it claims it has no
And this wouldn't change that, nor anything else. It would be a legal tax
efficient way to avoid Pete's tax.
Neil.
On 22/05/2020, 16:30, "Tim Chown" wrote:
> On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
>
> I'll
> On 22 May 2020, at 15:49, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
>
> I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg.
Google reports a higher percentage of IPv6 accesses in Luxembourg (40%) than
the UK (31%).
Tim
Is this really not UKNOT?!
Why would that happen Pete? Nobody would even know that you had even done it.
Regards,
Neil.
On 22/05/2020, 16:05, "Pete Stevens" wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2020, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
>
> I'll just
As I'm not allowed to use any more Friday memes :D
I'll just move all my IPv4s to be assets in a company in Luxembourg.
Neil.
On 22/05/2020, 15:35, "uknof on behalf of Pete Stevens"
wrote:
> Here's a thought.
Make IPv4 addresses taxable assets and have them declared on balance
Here's a thought.
Make IPv4 addresses taxable assets and have them declared on balance
sheets as part of equity. That way you've an incentive to stop using
them and give them back even if you believe in EBITDA because it lowers
your RoCE. It's not like HMRC isn't about to need a massive influx
A notice to all…
Play nicely folks.. this is UKNOF, not UKNOT.. just in case anyone had
forgotten. ;-)
Yes, you can disagree with someone’s viewpoint, but also remember that the
whole point of UKNOF is to foster a learning and knowledge sharing environment…
and the list is not only made up of
>I am tempted to argue that anybody without a public IP is not actually
>being given Internet access but mediated Internet "connection".
>
>So rather than deprecating IPv4 which I don't think is workable. Then
>"Internet access" should be sold as a separate product offer to Internet
something for the weekend :-)
On 22/05/2020 14:16, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I can see the meme generator is going to be busy today! :D
On 22/05/2020, 14:06, "uknof on behalf of Christian"
wrote:
Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please note)
have to have a
I can see the meme generator is going to be busy today! :D
On 22/05/2020, 14:06, "uknof on behalf of Christian"
wrote:
Another question. If all Internet connections (capital "I" please note)
have to have a public IP provided that is stable and are able to
initiate and respond to
https://imgflip.com/i/42fn8j
On 22/05/2020, 13:26, "uknof on behalf of Paul Mansfield"
wrote:
Here's a thought.
Industry leading bodies* should announce that from 2026 all internet
connections sold in the UK will be IPv6 only, and thus all CPEs must
support IPv6 on the WAN
72 matches
Mail list logo
