I have a doubt in ISIS. While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is decided? OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 : '4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing table entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost specified in the LSA. X is in terms of the link state metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric. (5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N. If no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N, with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR. If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y. If the external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2 external, the link state component of the route's cost is X, and the type 2 cost is Y.' What is the behavior in ISIS? Regards, Savyasachi 7676077879 On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:07 PM, <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: CIsco IOS bug info request (Randy Bush) 2. Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays (Jim Gettys) 3. Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays (Owen DeLong) 4. Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays (TJ) 5. Bandwidth growth (Curran, David) 6. Re: Bandwidth growth (Patrick W. Gilmore) 7. Re: Bandwidth growth (Adrian Chadd) 8. Re: Bandwidth growth (Martin Millnert) 9. Re: NEBS compliant Server (Jess Petty) 10. Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 (Savyasachi Choudhary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:02:15 +0900 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: CIsco IOS bug info request To: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <m2wriotz54.wl%randy@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
A "little" bit older one, but bigger - took down the whole internet:
for a small value of "whole internet"
same for ripe/duke experiment gone bad
randy
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:26:26 -0400 From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> Subject: Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4DAF4F82.3030201@freedesktop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The best way to make 6to4 diminish has always been and still remains:
Deploy Native IPv6 Now.
That's a plan and a necessity at this point, but, execution is still somewhat lagging.
Of course, Comcast *is* deploying native IPv6; see, for example, http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-January/031624.html It just takes a while -- and a non-trivial number of zorkmids -- to do things like replacing all of the non-v6 CPE.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb Comcast was not the target of my comment... The networks saying Comcast shouldn't help the rest of the net by providing open 6to4 relays were the ones I was referring to.
I again applaud Comcast's leadership on IPv6 to the end user, even if
On 04/20/2011 04:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: they haven't gotten
it to me yet. ;-)
They already have if you can run either 6rd or 6to4 and are a Comcast customer, even if you didn't happen to know they had. (Though they do plan to turn off the 6rd hack they were using this summer; their native trial and 6to4 work well enough to not need yet another transition mechanism).
Their kind offer is to extend availability of their 6to4 relays to others who aren't even Comcast customers...
(Says this reasonably happy participant in Comcast's IPv6 trial; my unhappiness is the state of CPE firmware, not with how well Comcast's end of things work; I plan to ditch commercial firmware on my home router for OpenWRT momentarily...) - Jim
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:55:02 -0500 From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Subject: Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays To: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <AEFA7162-80E6-4F3C-9BCA-E2D1FB04FE3C@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:
The best way to make 6to4 diminish has always been and still remains:
Deploy Native IPv6 Now.
That's a plan and a necessity at this point, but, execution is still somewhat lagging.
Of course, Comcast *is* deploying native IPv6; see, for example, http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-January/031624.html It just takes a while -- and a non-trivial number of zorkmids -- to do things like replacing all of the non-v6 CPE.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb Comcast was not the target of my comment... The networks saying Comcast shouldn't help the rest of the net by providing open 6to4 relays were the ones I was referring to.
I again applaud Comcast's leadership on IPv6 to the end user, even if
On 04/20/2011 04:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: they haven't gotten
it to me yet. ;-)
They already have if you can run either 6rd or 6to4 and are a Comcast customer, even if you didn't happen to know they had. (Though they do plan to turn off the 6rd hack they were using this summer; their native trial and 6to4 work well enough to not need yet another transition mechanism).
I'm already running IPv6 over 6in4 tunnels to my cool routers. 6rd is not an improvement.
I'm looking forward to the day when Comcast can deliver straight native IPv6 to me.
Their kind offer is to extend availability of their 6to4 relays to others who aren't even Comcast customers...
(Says this reasonably happy participant in Comcast's IPv6 trial; my unhappiness is the state of CPE firmware, not with how well Comcast's end of things work; I plan to ditch commercial firmware on my home router for OpenWRT momentarily...) - Jim
lol... The commercial JunOS on my home gateway seems to be working OK.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:57:23 -0400 From: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <BANLkTin5FwULR-k=V5=u1bCDURskx+qo4g@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 16:09, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
On 04/20/2011 12:50, Owen DeLong wrote:
Turnning off the servers will not reduce the brokenness of 6to4, it will increase it.
Depends on your definitions of "increase" and "broken." If all the relays disappeared tomorrow then the failure rate would be 100%, sure. But that would mean a single, (more or less) instant, deterministic failure that any modern OS ought to be able to handle intelligently; rather than the myriad of ways that 6to4 can half-succeed now. To me, that's a win.
While I can appreciate that 6to4 is far from perfect, and can create broken situations - I will also admit to using 6to4 on more than an occasional basis ... whether that be because:
- my aircard gets a public IPv4 address, and thus 6to4 spins up automatically - my Linksys CPE, out of the box, does 6to4 (SLAAC-advertising a prefix) - thus all of my home PCs do it as well (Win*, Ubuntu, etc.)
I find 6to4 to be far superior to no IPv6 connectivity, far easier than launching a TSP client (which I also have, just in case) ... and, in fact, to largely "just work" for all of my machines. More relays will do nothing but make this better, and as native IPv6 becomes available I will happily (and automatically!) move to that instead.
/TJ ... also a happy Comcast 6RD-beta user right now, so technically I am not using 6to4 at home *right now* (but will be using 6to4 again after June 30th, when the 6RD trial ends).
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:35:22 -0500 From: "Curran, David" <David.Curran@windstream.com> Subject: Bandwidth growth To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <C9D4FCC7.B4B5%david.curran@windstream.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, nor will the sources.
Thanks in advance,
David Curran I New Technology Planning I Windstream O-864.331.7132 I C-864.905.0522 I david.curran@windstream.com<mailto: david.curran@windstream.com>
*************************************************************************************** The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Windstream requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else.
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:55:30 -0400 From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <2AE1BD67-2C59-4333-A5D1-9FE9B61EA438@ianai.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote:
I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, nor will the sources.
<https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html> <http://www.ams-ix.net/historical-traffic-data/> <http://de-cix.net/content/network.html> <http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm> <http://www.torix.net/stats.php>
Etc.
I don't know if that proves your theory. And one could argue public IX stats are actually not representative of growth, since many networks move peers to private connections as they grow. But it is data, and it is available.
-- TTFN, patrick
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:36:54 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <20110421023654.GE13776@skywalker.creative.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
If it's a true research project, wouldn't you really be interested in both evidence for/against? :-)
Just my 2c here,
Adrian
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote:
I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. Any graphs or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. The purpose is for an internal research
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, nor will the sources.
<https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html> <http://www.ams-ix.net/historical-traffic-data/> <http://de-cix.net/content/network.html> <http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm> <http://www.torix.net/stats.php>
Etc.
I don't know if that proves your theory. And one could argue public IX
stats are actually not representative of growth, since many networks move peers to private connections as they grow. But it is data, and it is available.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $24/pm+GST entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:13:24 -0400 From: Martin Millnert <millnert@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bandwidth growth To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <BANLkTim08-kM4b_UDQpT7z6xqub00JREnA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Curran, David wrote:
I'm interested in any evidence (even anecdotal) that general Internet usage (and more importantly, link utilization) has increased at higher rates in the last 6-12 months than in previous periods. ?Any graphs or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. ?The purpose is for an internal research
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote: project and this data will only be used internally and will not be shared, nor will the sources.
<https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html> <http://www.ams-ix.net/historical-traffic-data/> <http://de-cix.net/content/network.html> <http://www.seattleix.net/agg.htm> <http://www.torix.net/stats.php>
Growth unsurprisingly also varies by region: http://www.msk-ix.ru/eng/traffic.html It has seen plenty of growth recently.
If any MSK-IX staff reads this, a 3-, 5- or all-year graph would be an interesting add!
I don't know if that proves your theory. ?And one could argue public IX stats are actually not representative of growth, since many networks move peers to private connections as they grow. ?But it is data, and it is available.
Aggregate IX statistics also fail to identify what part of the growth is due to people moving traffic onto IX:es, from private connections (transits). It is certainly data, aggregate data. I wouldn't hang my heart-lung machine off of it's accuracy in predicting individual networks short-term traffic developments though, so to speak. :)
Regards, Martin
------------------------------
Message: 9 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:32:47 -0700 From: Jess Petty <jess.petty@gmail.com> Subject: Re: NEBS compliant Server To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <BANLkTik3tgNQ3VQiirw-gLtvki8wJhTvmg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
We use Sun Netra.
Thanks, Jess
------------------------------
Message: 10 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:05:54 +0530 From: Savyasachi Choudhary <savyasachi.choudhary@gmail.com> Subject: Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <BANLkTinC_uVkaPm+9GbP7UkckMvNaz=8Vg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I have a doubt in ISIS. While redistributing routes from other protocols, how the metric is decided? OSPF has deccribed this in RFC 2328 Section 16.4 :
'4) Let X be the cost specified by the preferred routing table
entry for the ASBR/forwarding address, and Y the cost specified in the LSA. X is in terms of the link state metric, and Y is a type 1 or 2 external metric.
(5) Look up the routing table entry for the destination N. If no entry exists for N, install the AS external path to N, with next hop equal to the list of next hops to the forwarding address, and advertising router equal to ASBR. If the external metric type is 1, then the path-type is set to type 1 external and the cost is equal to X+Y. If the external metric type is 2, the path-type is set to type 2 external, the link state component of the route's cost is X,
and the type 2 cost is Y.'
What is the behavior in ISIS?
Regards, Savyasachi 7676077879
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM, <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) 2. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) 3. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates) 4. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) 5. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Joel Jaeggli) 6. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Owen DeLong) 7. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Mark Andrews) 8. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Matthew Kaufman) 9. Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective (Joel Jaeggli) 10. Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... (Jack Bates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:00:19 -0600 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4D532A93.50504@brightok.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so
On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote: that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs. Bridge only CPE's given off this node.
1043 IP addresses handed out 1024 Unique interfaces
Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :)
Jack
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:00:45 +1100 From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20110210000045.EA41D9DCA79@drugs.dv.isc.org>
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102091459200.15471@murf.icantclick.org>, david rai strick writes:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net> writes:
IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy layer 2 gear
I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long? 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you
And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate v6 support.
And who's fault is that? The ISP's and the vendors. The ISP's could have been requesting IPv6 support. The ISP's could have been running trials and providing feedback to the vendors. The vendors could have asked the ISP's to trail their IPv6 products.
We have been saying for years "make sure you are ready". That means buying and testing equipment. Lots of those that tested went on to production years ago.
As a vendor we like feedback on our products, good or bad. It's hard to work in a vacuum.
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:01:46 -0600 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4D532AEA.2090505@brightok.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.
ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from various tests, and is native v6.
Jack
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:07:26 +1100 From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20110210000726.3CABE9DCC09@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cost's might be lower but service will be worse. NAT breaks a lot of applications file sharing will not work properly and running your own web server at home will not work properly. Well you always get what you pay for and people will buy any crap if it is cheap enough. =20 Jens
While that is true, it is no worse than the situation right now. In
In message < 5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>, " George Bonser" writes: the
US, the vast majority of users are already behind a NAT (I would say over 90% of them are) so they are already experiencing this breakage. =20
But for the most part they can work around breakages with a single NAT. Double NAT prevents most of the work arounds working.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:08:10 -0800 From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4D532C6A.20209@bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 2/9/11 3:43 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Almost none of the broadband providers in the US NAT their customers.
Well, I suppose I have been unlucky then because every single one I have had has NATed me. I had a "real" IP when I had dialup, but I got NAT when I went broadband. I have a friend that has another service and she is NATed too. Boot up in her network and you get 192.168.1.x
The the cpe... In all likelihood it has a public ip on the outside.
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:10:46 -0800 From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <582356A9-5ADC-4244-8BA0-EE1F2F3EF388@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:16 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long? 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you
And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear they could purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate v6 support.
This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from their vendors during that time.
I was purchasing for and building small SP networks during that time.
Requiring v6 of our vendors would have meant we just never got anything, so we'd have never provided service. Come to think if it, maybe it -would- have been better for everyone involved (except those of us who just got paychecks and experience out of it) to just simply not do it - but we didn't know that at the time 15 years ago!
Requiring it delivered day one, sure. Putting in a requirement for "Will support" so that they are required to provide an upgrade path, OTOH, to me seemed like it was basic good business sense. It worked out pretty well for the organizations I was working for back then. We got upgradeable hardware and the vendors got awareness of the demand. Admittedly, I wasn't working in the last mile arena. However, pressuring vendors is possible without sacrificing immediate needs.
Vendor C and J don't provide gear that fits into all network topologies
(WISPs, MTU DSL, and smallish ADSL roll outs come to mind, certain during the time period in question. Sure, they eventually bought products in those markets...but even still, I had sub 6 figure budgets to build with - I certainly had no leverage).
I don't think that networks with sub-6-figure buildouts are the ones we're too worried about right now. They can probably upgrade for sub-6-figure amounts.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:22:31 +1100 From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20110210002231.23F0E9DCFDD@drugs.dv.isc.org>
On 2/9/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:00 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Jens Link wrote:
Scott Helms<khelms@ispalliance.net> writes:
> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy > layer 2 gear I don't feel sorry for them. We know that IPv6 is coming for how long? 15years? 10year? 5years? Well if you only read the mainstream media you And at what point during that time did they have any vendor gear
d purchase that -would- support v6? At -best- during the last 5 years, but I'd put money on that even today they can't purchase gear with adequate v6 su pport.
This is largely the result of the fact that they did not demand it from
In message <4D531B52.70404@ispalliance.net>, Scott Helms writes: they coul the
ir
vendors during that time.
Owen
Absolutely, just as the ISPs didn't see demand, and don't today, from their users and thus the circle of blame is complete :)
And some of their customers have been asking for IPv6 all along.
I started asking my ISP at home in 2003. I suspect if all the ISPs here were honest they would say that they have had a trickle of IPv6 requests for the last 8 years.
Mark
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:54:05 +1000 To: Mark_Andrews@isc.org From: cablesupport@optusnet.com.au Subject: Re: [TT#6556559] HELPDESK Feedback Form - Mon Jun 16 09:52:50 2003
Return-Path: nobody@pts.optusnet.com.au Delivery-Date: Mon Jun 16 10:00:00 2003 Return-Path: <nobody@pts.optusnet.com.au> X-Original-To: marka@farside.isc.org Delivered-To: marka@farside.isc.org X-Loop: pts Reply-To: cablesupport@optusnet.com.au
Hello,
Thank you for your email regarding the OptusNet Cable service.
At the moment there are no plans for any IPv6 deployment, when this is due to happen we will notify all customers.
Regards, Alex OptusNet Cable Technical Support
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800 From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4D533107.5010202@matthew.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so
On 2/9/2011 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote: that
individual nodes in the home network get global IPs. Bridge only CPE's given off this node.
1043 IP addresses handed out 1024 Unique interfaces
Looks like customers aren't always big on more than 1 IP. :)
Jack
And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class of home appliances will need its own subnet.
Matthew Kaufman
------------------------------
Message: 9 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:29:54 -0800 From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Subject: Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4D533182.6020505@bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 2/9/11 2:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There have been IPv6 for dummies sessions at many past NANOGs.
If NANOG is willing to provide time and space for them at future events, I will be happy to conduct the tutorial sessions.
program committee would no doubt love to hear from you.
Owen
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
With the recent allocation of the last existing IPv4 /8s (which now kind of puts pressure on going v6), it would be wonderful if at the next couple of NANOGs if there could be an IPv6 for dummies session or two :)
-Mike
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
On 2/9/2011 12:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the call that such-and-such isn't working right.
What scares me most is that every time I upgrade a router to support needed hardware or some badly needed IPv6 feature, something else breaks. Sometimes it's just the router crashes on a specific IPv6 command entered at CLI (C) or as nasty as NSR constantly crashing the slave (J); the fixes generally requiring me to upgrade again to the latest cutting edge releases which everyone hates (where I'm sure I'll find MORE bugs).
The worst is when you're the first to find the bug(which I'm not even sure how it's possible given how simplistic my configs are, isis multitopology, iBGP, NSR, a few acls and route-maps/policies), it takes 3-6 months or so to track it down, and then it's put only in the next upcoming release (not out yet) and backported to the last release.
Jack (hates all routers equally, doesn't matter who makes it)
------------------------------
Message: 10 Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:30:46 -0600 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> Subject: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... To: matthew@matthew.at Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4D5331B6.60902@brightok.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/9/2011 6:27 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
And meanwhile Comcast has announced one /64-per-household service for IPv6... guess they didn't get the memo from Owen about how every class of home appliances will need its own subnet.
I wonder if their RIR justification was for /64 to household or /48. :)
Jack
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 121 **************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 39, Issue 68 *************************************