Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Doubt in ISIS
From: Savyasachi Choudhary <savyasachi.choudhary () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:25:51 +0530

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

On 04/20/2011 04:44 PM, Owen DeLong 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
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:

On 04/20/2011 04:44 PM, Owen DeLong 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
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 Wed, Apr 20, 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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


--
- 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 Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
wrote:
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>

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

On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so
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>


In message <
5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC1397D () RWC-EX1 corp seven com>, "
George Bonser" writes:
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
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>


In message <4D531B52.70404 () ispalliance net>, Scott Helms writes:
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
they
coul
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
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 4:00 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/9/2011 5:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I have yet to see a broadband provider that configures a network so
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
*************************************



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • Doubt in ISIS Savyasachi Choudhary (Apr 21)
    • Message not available
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]