Is anyone on this list aware of any IPv6 ready networks in the English speaking caribbean? Rudi Daniel On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 2:19 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: quietly.... (Owen DeLong) 2. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Simon Leinen) 3. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Fred Richards) 4. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (Joel Jaeggli) 5. Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? (Cameron Byrne) 6. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (John Curran) 7. Re: quietly.... (Roland Perry) 8. Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market (Joel Jaeggli) 9. Re: quietly.... (Roland Perry) 10. Re: quietly.... (Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:22:55 -0800 From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Subject: Re: quietly.... To: "Lee Howard" <lee@asgard.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <BE9E6EDB-4C0B-4313-BA18-D38F8C881970@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Firewalls merely constrict it. Not that I advocate against the use of firewalls; in fact, I think I'm agreeing with you, and extending the argument a
little
further, that we should move from NAT to firewalls, then from stateful firewalls to secure hosts and network security appliances.
Lee
I would be fine with that. However, in terms of the art of the possible with the tools available today, IPv6 has no need of NAT, but, firewalls cannot yet be safely removed from the equation.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:43:04 +0100 From: Simon Leinen <simon.leinen@switch.ch> Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <aatyghjeqv.fsf@macsl.switch.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Tim Chown writes:
Which of the big boys are doing it?
Google - although there don't call themselves a web hoster, they can be used for hosting web sites using services such as Sites or App Engine. Both support IPv6, either using the opt-in mechanism or by using an alternate CNAME (ghs46 instead of ghs.google.com). That's what I use.
None of the other large "cloud" providers seems to support IPv6 for their users yet. In particular, neither Amazon's AWS not Microsoft Azure have much visible activity in this direction. Rackspace have announced IPv6 support for the first half of 2011.
Concerning the more traditional webhosting offerings, I have no idea about the "big boys". Here in Switzerland, a few smaller hosters support IPv6. And I saw IPv6 mentioned in ads for some German server hosting offering. Germany is interesting because it has a well-developed hosting ecosystem with some really big players. -- Simon.
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:49:06 -0500 From: Fred Richards <fredr@geexology.org> Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <AANLkTiksv84+tSm80AjyXg-XZDfX3NGJz1FJM0KQ64Hp@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I ran across this link a while back, it shows, of the top 100k websites (according to Alexa), which ones are IPv6 enabled:
http://www.atoomnet.net/ipv6_enabled_popular_websites.php?complete_list=true
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Simon Leinen <simon.leinen@switch.ch> wrote:
Tim Chown writes:
Which of the big boys are doing it?
Google - although there don't call themselves a web hoster, they can be used for hosting web sites using services such as Sites or App Engine. Both support IPv6, either using the opt-in mechanism or by using an alternate CNAME (ghs46 instead of ghs.google.com). ?That's what I use.
None of the other large "cloud" providers seems to support IPv6 for their users yet. ?In particular, neither Amazon's AWS not Microsoft Azure have much visible activity in this direction. ?Rackspace have announced IPv6 support for the first half of 2011.
Concerning the more traditional webhosting offerings, I have no idea about the "big boys". ?Here in Switzerland, a few smaller hosters support IPv6. ?And I saw IPv6 mentioned in ads for some German server hosting offering. ?Germany is interesting because it has a well-developed hosting ecosystem with some really big players. -- Simon.
-- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fred
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:15:09 -0800 From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <4D4ED71D.7020104@bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 2/6/11 8:00 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
What's really needed is seperate the routing slot market from the address allocation market.
Bingo! In fact, having an efficient market for obtaining routing of a given prefix, combined with IPv6 vast identifier space, could actually satisfy the primary goals that we hold for a long-term scalable address architecture, and enable doing it in a highly distributed, automatable fashion:
So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per participant then it nets out to zero.
Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs.
Yay?
Aggregation would be encouraged, since use of non-aggregatable address space would entail addition costs. These costs might be seen as minimal for some organizations that desire addressing autonomy, but others might decide treating their address space portable and routable results in higher cost than is desired. Decisions about changing prefixes with ISPs can be made based on a rational tradeoff of costs, rather than in a thicket of ISP and registry policies.
Conservation would actually be greatly improved, since address space would only be sought after because of the need for additional unique identifiers, rather than obtaining an address block of a given size to warrant implied routability. In light of IPv6's vast address space, it actually would be possible to provide minimally-sized but assured unique prefixes automatically via nearly any mechanism (i.e. let your local user or trade association be a registry if they want)
With a significantly reduced policy framework, Registration could be fully automated, with issuance being as simple as assurance the right level of verification of requester identity (You might even get rid of this, if you can assure that ISPs obtain clear identity of clients before serving them but that would preclude any form of reputation systems based on IP address prefix such as we have in use today...)
Just think: the savings in storage costs alone (from the reduction in address policy-related email on all our mailing lists) could probably fund the system. :-)
Oh well, one project at a time... /John
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:27:58 -0800 From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too? To: fredr@geexology.org Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <AANLkTikjc1e_YoUt7ntFHtdSneMH44-TBZ-ZJ8VLTNA9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I have used both softlayer and arpnetworks. Both have v6 by default, but only softlayer can be considered a big boy... multiple sites. Cloud and dedicated servers ... softlayer is a class act with v6 added for free
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:32:17 -0500 From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <83EF5AB0-741E-4FB2-A348-00477482A848@istaff.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
So assuming this operates on a pollution model the victims of routing table bloat are compensated by the routing table pollutors for the use of the slots which they have to carry. so I take the marginal cost of the slots that I need subtract the royalities I recieve from the other participants and if I'm close to the mean number of slots per participant then it nets out to zero.
Routing table growth continues but with some illusion of fairness and the cost of maintaining an elaborate system which no-one needs.
One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table slots.
Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying additional routes.
/John
p.s. While I do believe there would be a net benefit, it also should be noted that there is no apparent way to transition to such a model in any case, i.e., it could have been done that way from the beginning, but a large scale economic reengineering effort at this point might be impossible.
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:45:46 +0000 From: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com> Subject: Re: quietly.... To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <uCKSinaK5tTNFATH@perry.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
In article <85D304BA-6C4E-4B86-9717-2ADB542B8606@delong.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> writes
Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before you buy?
If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the contract and the contract says they are providing internet access, then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to date.
You may be right about enforcing that in the USA (is it an FCC thing?), but it won't fly in most other places.
Admittedly, I'm not over-fussed about email on my phone and I don't use a tether device at this point.
The 3G I'm discussing is a dongle intended for general access.
I mostly expect 3G and 4G networks to be broken internet anyway. I was more speaking in terms of land-line providers.
Apparently there are something like three times as many people with mobile phones in the world, as with Internet access. And a lot of network expansion is expected to be based on mobile connectivity as a result. -- Roland Perry
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:49:12 -0800 From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: <4D4EDF18.3000207@bogus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 2/6/11 9:32 AM, John Curran wrote:
One hopes that the costs of consuming routing table slots creates backpressure to discourage needless use, and that the royalities receive offset the costs of carrying any additional routing table slots.
Note that our present system lacks both consistent backpressure on consumption of routing table slots and compensation for carrying additional routes.
The costs of carrying routes is unevenly distributed. when I have to carry 2 million routes in my fib on few hundred 120Gb/s line cards it's a bit different than someone with a software router who just has to make sure they have 4GB of ram...
That has very attractive properties along some dimensions. e.g. the cost at the margin of connecting a new participant to the internet is rather low.
------------------------------
Message: 9 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:49:28 +0000 From: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com> Subject: Re: quietly.... To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <5iyXqtbo8tTNFAyd@perry.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
In article <20110205131510.BE13E9B5167@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> writes
And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small enterprise attract their attention and get the features added?
You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose and demand your money back. Renumbering is expected to occur with IPv6, part of renumbering is getting the name to address mappings right. With DHCP the DHCP server normally does it. With SLAAC the host has to do it as there is no other choice.
Here in Australia it is Repair/Replace/Refund if the product purchased is faulty. That applies to all products. If the milk is off when we get home we go back and get it replaced and if the store is out of stock we get a refund. I've returned and had replaced plenty of stuff over the years.
I think you are just confirming my view that moving from IPv4 to IPv6 will involve more than the ISP doing some magic that's transparent to the majority of users. And good luck returning a 3 year old PS/3 for a refund on the basis it doesn't support IPv6. -- Roland Perry
------------------------------
Message: 10 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:17:00 -0800 From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Subject: Re: quietly.... To: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <BC37A5F0-78DE-4881-B649-0D42610BE7BF@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In article <20110205131510.BE13E9B5167@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews < marka@isc.org> writes
And when my vendor is Sipura, or Sony[1], how does an individual small enterprise attract their attention and get the features added?
You return the equipment as not suitable for the advertised purpose and demand your money back. Renumbering is expected to occur with IPv6, part of renumbering is getting the name to address mappings right. With DHCP the DHCP server normally does it. With SLAAC the host has to do it as there is no other choice.
Here in Australia it is Repair/Replace/Refund if the product purchased is faulty. That applies to all products. If the milk is off when we get home we go back and get it replaced and if the store is out of stock we get a refund. I've returned and had replaced plenty of stuff over the years.
I think you are just confirming my view that moving from IPv4 to IPv6 will involve more than the ISP doing some magic that's transparent to the majority of users. And good luck returning a 3 year old PS/3 for a refund on the basis it doesn't support IPv6. -- Roland Perry
I'm pretty sure the PS3 will get resolved through a software update.
Yes, there will be user-visible disruptions in this transition.
No, it can't be 100% magic on the part of the service provider.
It still has to happen. There is no viable alternative.
Owen
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 93 *************************************
-- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774> **1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774> * * *