NANOG Digest, Vol 37, Issue 93

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Sun Feb 6 13:28:28 CST 2011


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 at nanog.org> wrote:

> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>        nanog at 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 at nanog.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        nanog-owner at 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 at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: quietly....
> To: "Lee Howard" <lee at asgard.org>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <BE9E6EDB-4C0B-4313-BA18-D38F8C881970 at 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 at switch.ch>
> Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too?
> To: Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID: <aatyghjeqv.fsf at 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 at geexology.org>
> Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too?
> To: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTiksv84+tSm80AjyXg-XZDfX3NGJz1FJM0KQ64Hp at 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 at 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 at bogus.com>
> Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market
> To: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID: <4D4ED71D.7020104 at 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 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Top webhosters offering v6 too?
> To: fredr at geexology.org
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTikjc1e_YoUt7ntFHtdSneMH44-TBZ-ZJ8VLTNA9 at 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 at istaff.org>
> Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market
> To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID: <83EF5AB0-741E-4FB2-A348-00477482A848 at 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 at internetpolicyagency.com>
> Subject: Re: quietly....
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <uCKSinaK5tTNFATH at perry.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
>
> In article <85D304BA-6C4E-4B86-9717-2ADB542B8606 at delong.com>, Owen
> DeLong <owen at 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 at bogus.com>
> Subject: Re: What's really needed is a routing slot market
> To: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> Message-ID: <4D4EDF18.3000207 at 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 at internetpolicyagency.com>
> Subject: Re: quietly....
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <5iyXqtbo8tTNFAyd at perry.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
>
> In article <20110205131510.BE13E9B5167 at drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews
> <marka at 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 at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: quietly....
> To: Roland Perry <lists at internetpolicyagency.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Message-ID: <BC37A5F0-78DE-4881-B649-0D42610BE7BF at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In article <20110205131510.BE13E9B5167 at drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews <
> marka at 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 at 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>
*
*
*



More information about the NANOG mailing list