- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

IPv4 Exhaustion
by Philip D'Ath 11 Dec '06

11 Dec '06

I attended a very interesting presentation today by Tony Bain, one of the key IETF IPv6 chairs. He says that the rate of /8's being allocated is increasing exponentially at that moment (22 were allocated in 18 months [till July 2005], leaving just 64 available worldwide), and the prior estimate of when IPv4 address was going to be exhausted of 2020 has been revised to 2009 - as in three years away, and that IPv4 address space is likely to take on a much more commercially tradable value as it becomes very rare (like oil). For existing players in the market this doesn't mean much. However for expanding networks this is going to put a serious crimp in their plans. I polled a lot of players in the NZ market about 6 months ago and plans for IPv6 deployment were almost non-existent. There is an older article he wrote here: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4. html We really need large commercial transit players like Global Gateway, TelstraClear, AT&T, UUNet, AsiaNetCom, and Sprint to start offering dual stack IPv6 connections to downstream ISPs, and for ISPs to start allowing clients to connection via IPv6, including via DSL. We really need to get critical infrastructure, like DNS, fully IPv6 enabled. The .nz domain isn't even reachable via IPv6 addresses yet. Now I know the shared registry system has IPv6 support now, but it is limiting in that you must still supply IPv4 addresses. You can't supply only IPv6 glue records. What happens when you can't get IPv4 addresses to use for glue? Also the majority of the registries out their offer very poor IPv6 support - as in no IPv6 connected DNS servers, and an inability to easily add IPv6 AAAA records.

14 23

Moving DNS providers - best practice.
by Simon Lyall 10 Dec '06

10 Dec '06

After a few recent instances I am getting sick of companies who transfer their DNS/Servers from one provider to another and then wonder why the old data is still cached by 3rd parties for 24 hours (or whatever). How do people feel about a "best practice" document on this that we could encourage people to follow ( perhaps the DNC could publish) for people moving their domain between providers. Just the basics like, dropping the TTLs, getting all the servers data in the right order etc? Similar to this: http://www.onr.com/services/data_center/colocation/transfer_tips.html Thoguhts? -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

14 21

NO contact list
by Gerard Creamer 10 Dec '06

10 Dec '06

There now appear to be two versions of this list. http://www.tcn.bowenvale.co.nz/content/view/49/40/ and http://www.usenet.net.nz/noc/index.html We have recently been assigned a public AS and I thought we should probably go on the list - as we're growing our things breaking will have a wider impact and other NOs might want to get hold of us. I have no issue with being woken up in the middle of the night when our things break. I have a strong objection to being woken up when someone elses things break. Personally I like the (mostly) unlinked anonymity of the list at usenet.net.nz, as it's less likely to be some kid who has no idea what an AS is calling at 2am because the gaming server they're using in suddenly unreachable (probably due to some reason other than our network being broken). Sure, the kid might ultimately pay my wages, but they're sure as hell not my customer... I emailed Simon Lyall yesterday to ask to go on the list at usenet.net.nz - is this still going to be considered the NO list? I know there's no king and all that jazz, but some direction for a newbie AS NO would be appreciated... For the record, here's our guff: Name Netspace Services Limited Domains netspace.net.nz ASN(s) 9733 Phone Number(s) +64 4 917 8098, 0800 NETSPACE (0800 638 772) Clueful People Gerard Creamer Direct Email noc(a)netspace.net.nz Hours Office Thanks, Gerard

5 5

XTRA mail servers
by Simon 07 Dec '06

07 Dec '06

Hi There :) We are having some major issues over the past week when forwarding mail to xtra. Mainly: - delivery temporarily suspended: connect to mta.xtra.co.nz - connect to mta.xtra.co.nz[210.54.141.1]: server dropped connection without sending the initial SMTP greeting Has anyone seen any of these issues and knows anything about them? I just trying to contact XTRA's administrators, but no response. I have had a good response back from the corporate side of XTRA, which is assuring. Regards and Thanks, Simon

11 12

Re: [nznog] NZNOG 2007: CFP: Network Systems Administration MiniConf
by Ewen McNeill 07 Dec '06

07 Dec '06

In message <20061122214213.8BB2A43E17(a)wat.la.naos.co.nz>, Ewen McNeill writes: > Call for Presentations for > NZNOG 2007: Network Systems Administration Mini-Conference >[....] >Some possible topics: >- Email servers and spam filtering techniques >[....] >Please send all proposals and questions to <talks(a)nznog.miniconf.org> At the risk of distracting everyone from arguing about responsible use of the list, I'd just like to point out that we still have room for a couple more talks at the Sysadmin Miniconf (on the first day of NZNOG 2007). And that we'd particularly welcome a proposal on, eg, best practices in running a mail server, or coping with the ever increasing volume of spam without rejecting all the legitimate mail. Proposals of other relevant talks (see the original CFP) are also welcomed, but be quick as we'd like to finalise the programme before Christmas so the speakers know what their summer homework is. Ewen

1 0

Re: [nznog] Xtra Email Administrators
by Martin Kealey 07 Dec '06

07 Dec '06

<metoo/> Given that (apparently) along with many other ISPs, Ihug also seem to have trouble with Xtra's inbound mailservers, perhaps I should say "could someone from Xtra please contact me ON list". (Yes we're all on fire trying to deal with Image Spam, but refusing valid mail just makes it worse...) -Martin -- Martin D Kealey, ihüg Systems Engineer

7 7

Xtra Email Administrators
by Simon 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

Would someone from the xtra email team please be able to contact me offlist? Much appreciated. Simon

20 35

INFO: Contact for xtra email admins
by Lin Nah 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

IN case this is lost amongst the flurry of flames, here's who to contact. It does appear lost as someone did ask again about 20 mins after Ted posted this (mind you I have only date stamps to go by). Lots of you are still flaming about it. May I also point out that Ted has in the past responded to this list stating he's happy to be contacted about this. eg http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2005-August/010430.html http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2005-January/009460.html regards lin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:52:23 +1300 From: Ted Grenfell <Ted.Grenfell(a)telecom.co.nz> To: Simon <greminn(a)gmail.com>, nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Xtra Email Administrators So as always, you're all welcome to call me direct if you've an Xtra query that you don't want to send via postmaster etc. -- Kind Regards, Ted Grenfell Online Services Mgr (acting) T +64 9 359 5854 (extn 93254) F +64 9 377 0781 M +64 27 443 5455 E ted.grenfell(a)telecom.co.nz W www.telecom.co.nz Level 11, Telecom House, 8 Hereford Street, Private Bag 92028, Auckland CBD, New Zealand ________________________________ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon [mailto:greminn(a)gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, 7 December 2006 12:42 p.m. > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: [nznog] Xtra Email Administrators > > Would someone from the xtra email team please be able to contact me > offlist? > > Much appreciated. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

Re: [nznog] XTRA mail servers
by James Tolchard 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

On 07/12/2006, at 2:10 PM, Simon wrote: > We are having some major issues over the past week when forwarding > mail to xtra. Mainly: > > - delivery temporarily suspended: connect to mta.xtra.co.nz > - connect to mta.xtra.co.nz[210.54.141.1]: server dropped connection > without sending the initial SMTP greeting > > Has anyone seen any of these issues and knows anything about them? We are also seeing issues since late November. I emailed postmaster(a)xtra from elsewhere on 1 December, with no response so far. Typical log: Dec 7 14:19:26 skinner postfix/smtp[19226]: connect to mta.xtra.co.nz [210.54.141.1]: server dropped connection without sending the initial greeting (port 25) Typical telnet: $ telnet mta.xtra.co.nz 25 Trying 210.54.141.1... Connected to mta.xtra.co.nz. Escape character is '^]'. Connection closed by foreign host. $ The above is the most common behaviour, but apparently the connection does stay open properly from time to time (I had to send a bunch in a row to get this): Dec 7 14:28:34 skinner postfix/smtp[19322]: 187FFA9EF2B: to=<jkhhlkhkjh(a)xtra.co.nz>, relay=mta.xtra.co.nz[210.54.141.1], delay=27, status=bounced (host mta.xtra.co.nz[210.54.141.1] said: 550 Invalid recipient: <jkhhlkhkjh(a)xtra.co.nz> (in reply to RCPT TO command)) We also sometimes get "421 Service not available" before it drops the connection, and sometimes we even get connection refused. But when we're really lucky: 220 mta01.xtra.co.nz ESMTP server ready Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:41:34 +1300 220 mta06.xtra.co.nz ESMTP server ready Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:43:01 +1300 So, yeah, it looks like something might be up. Cheers -- James Tolchard System Administrator Christ's College Canterbury Phone: +64 3 364 6806

1 0

Null route on AT9812T router
by James Neil Tyson 06 Dec '06

06 Dec '06

If anyone knows how to add a null static route on an Allied Telesyn AT9812T router please email me offlist. I hate these damn things.

1 0

Re: [nznog] CHIX
by Stewart Fleming 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

DPE is also up and running in Dunedin and has first connections from January 2007. We requested a name change to DIX so that we could hook up CHIX with DIX, but the request was again denied.

2 1

Re: [nznog] Charging for IPv6
by Alex Hague 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

David Zanetti wrote: > I just don't see anything today I would bother demanding native v6 > transit for. So long as that't the case, I can live with tunnels for the > lab/play phase of things. How about an IPv6 wireless mesh as a reason to adopt... this is purely hypothetical, but say in the Auckland (/ Wellington / where ever) CBD there was an IPv6 wireless mesh, peered locally on the IPv6 peering exchange. New sources of local content may begin to appear such as bands providing live streams via the mesh of their gigs at the local bars / pubs / clubs etc. Current non-internet content providers such as radio stations might decide to provide their own streams. ISPs wishing to be WISPs would need to adopt v6. The benefits from what I know of IPv6 (which I'm still doing my homework on - so turn the flame jets down a notch) would be that all addresses on the mesh could be internet routable, and because of the local nature of the mesh most content would probably have local relevance rather than anything further a field, so with good local peering (which is relatively inexpensive) it would be completely feasible to deliver high speed local content. While I know that this is hypothetical, do you think it might provide an incentive for people to start using IPv6 to access the content? Furthermore, people might actually have a reason to request v6 from ISPs and ISPs wishing to provide services to mesh users would have a reason to go v6 ($$$)... Cheers, Alex -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/568 - Release Date: 4/12/2006

3 2

Any mail admins from sbc.sbcglobal.net on here?
by Paul Adshead 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Please contact me off list.

1 0

CHIX
by Russell Tester 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Does anyone know if CHIX is alive, was it ever alive or are there any plans to revive it in the future? Regards, Russell Tester Severworks Ltd

4 3

Re: [nznog] CHIX - who'd sign up tomorrow?
by Erin Salmon 04 Dec '06

04 Dec '06

Hi, Last I heard (about 2 years ago) it was to be hosted between Snap Internet and University of Canterbury. We have been eager to peer since before a chix was ruminated, and remain so. Unleash would be happy to put forth a small amount of rackspace for the purpose if others want to get some informal peering going. We also have tall buildings at our disposal for those out there who are wirelessly inclined. My motivation is to eliminate costly backhaul to other main centres and create a marketplace, if you will, for bandwidth down here. Christchurch could use some life breathed into its Internet. Expressions of interest? Erin -----Original Message----- From: "Nathan Ward" <nznog(a)daork.net> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Sent: 6/12/06 12:24 a.m. Subject: Re: [nznog] CHIX http://nzix.net/ The following exchanges are under construction: * Christchurch Internet Exchange * Southland Internet Exchange The "Who uses .." list shows nothing. Also, your sig is misspelt. On 6/12/2006, at 12:19 AM, Russell Tester wrote: > Does anyone know if CHIX is alive, was it ever alive or are there any > plans to revive it in the future? > > Regards, > > Russell Tester > Severworks Ltd > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > !DSPAM:22,457555d3143831749460768! > > > _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

FW:Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jeremy Simons 02 Dec '06

02 Dec '06

Statement from TeamTalk Kordia supplies services to TeamTalk and we have a longstanding relationship with Kordia. They are one of our preferred suppliers and we are happy with our commercial arrangements. TeamTalk did not authorise the release of any Kordia material. The statement in question was sent to a junior member of TeamTalk's staff who contrary to company policy copied it to Jonathan Brewer of Araneo. We are treating the matter very seriously and are taking steps to ensure that such a breach of policy does not occur again. It is important to note that the item quoted was one paragraph from a complex 25-page document and was taken out of context. We value our relationship with Kordia and regret that this incident has occurred Jeremy Simons General Manager - Operations TeamTalk Limited ____________________________________________ Jeremy Simons General Manager - Operations TeamTalk Limited How Work Gets Done Phone: ++64 4 802 1478 Mobile: ++64 21 715 390 Fax: ++64 4 802 1490 <mailto:jsimons(a)teamtalk.co.nz> Mail to: jsimons(a)teamtalk.co.nz Disclaimer: The information in this electronic mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this Internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. TeamTalk Limited accepts no responsibility for any effects this email message or attachments has on the recipient network or computer system.

7 7

Re: [nznog] FW: Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Dean Pemberton 30 Nov '06

30 Nov '06

> List moderator, is it possible to remove this list from the archives? I think we've been through this before, and the answer is no. There is all sorts of things in the archives that people would like to have removed. The answer has always been no. Infact way back in time there was a HUGE argument about it. Where people offered to just make alternative, REAL versions of the archives with the removed posts. It got really nasty. Dean (In his ad-hoc role as NZNOG historian)

5 4

FW: Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jonathan Brewer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi Folks, I'm afraid my question may have breached a confidentiality agreement and we are getting angry phone calls from our supplier, so please disregard my email earlier today and delete any references to it from your inbox if that is possible. List moderator, is it possible to remove this list from the archives? Thanks, Jonathan Brewer > ______________________________________________ > From: Jonathan Brewer [mailto:jon.brewer(a)araneo.net.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:42 a.m. > To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' > Subject: Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators > > Hi Folks, > > We telehouse at a number of facilities throughout New Zealand. We > typically provide our own batteries and contract for use of an on-site > diesel generator. At most sites we are not able to put in our own > generator. > > We were recently informed by Kordia (BCL) that they can no longer allow us > to use standby generator power at their sites due to the Electricity > Reforms Act. > > "BCL is deemed to be a Line Company under the Electricity Reforms Act and > therefore is unable to also be classified as a Generator. On that basis, > BCL is no longer able to provide you with Standby Generator Power for > upgrades to existing or new services." > > This effectively bars us from providing carrier grade telecommunications > services from BCL sites. > > One might say "use different sites" or "build your own towers", but these > are not options as these towers were built by the government before the > times of the Resource Management Act in unique locations where new towers > cannot be built. > > Can they do this? Are they doing this to everyone, or just us? > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Brewer

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

: The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught : many lessons about what will and will not work (and more : importantly what will be accepted or not). Exactly. I NEED to multihome. I won't accept not being able to do that. No provider is going to be good enough that I trust ALL of my connectivity with them and no one else. That settles it right there. A protocol should not dictate my business practice. : ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's : presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" WRT "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses", I see the following chart. (apologies for the formatting. It's on page 6 at www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/alain-durand.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Triple Play Effect on the Use of IP Addresses 2005 2006+ HSD only Triple Play Cable Modem 1(private only) 1 Home Computer/Router 1 1 eMTA (Voice adaptor) 0 1 – 2 Set Top Box (STB) 0 2 Total number of IP addresses(assume 2.5 1 – 2 8 – 9 STB per household) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What STB needs 2 IPs per box? The way we're doing it is one private IP per STB and one STB per television set, so that's 2-3 private IPs per household. One public IP per customer for Internet and we're not going for VoIP until later. Perhaps they have one STB per household no matter the number of television sets? Also, I see they have 20-30 ASNs. Are all 20M customers going to be in one AS? I wouldn't expect that. Finally, with VPRNs addresses could be reused. Just put the customers in different VPRNs and duplicate the address scheme. It's 'divide and conquer' methodology. I'm a noobie to VPRNs, so flame me if this isn't feasible. I have doused my flameproof underpants with beer, so I'm protected... :-) scott --- jejs+lists(a)sahala.org wrote: From: "joshua sahala" <jejs+lists(a)sahala.org> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:42:35 +1300 (NZDT) I find it slightly ironic that those screaming the loudest for IPv6 seem to have the most poorly researched assertions regarding the death of IPv4. (I am of course ignoring the obvious stupidity of things like IPv8/9/16) Who are the loudest proponents of IPv6? I tend to agree with the evaluation presented in Todd Underwood's blog: vendors, consultants, and the protocol designers themselves... (http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/03/bashing_ipv6_at_telecomnext.shtml) If IPv6 is the answer, what was the question again? Perhaps it is time to accept that IPv6 is the wrong answer (or we need to start asking better questions), take the lessons learned from its failure, and start again. The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught many lessons about what will and will not work (and more importantly what will be accepted or not). There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack. These issue must be addressed, either in IPv6 (not likely), or in IPng-NG :) </soapbox> /joshua ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" (it says ~20-million customers + kit == 100-million) -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams - _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

9 15

Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jonathan Brewer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi Folks, We telehouse at a number of facilities throughout New Zealand. We typically provide our own batteries and contract for use of an on-site diesel generator. At most sites we are not able to put in our own generator. We were recently informed by Kordia (BCL) that they can no longer allow us to use standby generator power at their sites due to the Electricity Reforms Act. "BCL is deemed to be a Line Company under the Electricity Reforms Act and therefore is unable to also be classified as a Generator. On that basis, BCL is no longer able to provide you with Standby Generator Power for upgrades to existing or new services." This effectively bars us from providing carrier grade telecommunications services from BCL sites. One might say "use different sites" or "build your own towers", but these are not options as these towers were built by the government before the times of the Resource Management Act in unique locations where new towers cannot be built. Can they do this? Are they doing this to everyone, or just us? Thanks, Jonathan Brewer

3 2

[Fwd: Re: Charging for IPv6]
by Gerard Creamer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

On 30/11/2006 11:36 a.m., Andy Linton wrote: > For us having this address space from APNIC pushes us into the next tier of > membership and costs us an additional US$2500 a year. We have had a very > serious discussion here about returning this to APNIC and getting a reduction > in our charges. We recently got our first allocation from APNIC, and I was surprised that we had to choose 4 or 6 and had to pay more for both - as Andy says, are we being encouraged to do this or not? We are still small, so the additional cost is prohibitive. I would have thought there would be an associated IP6 allocation with every IP4 allocation, but I guess I was naive. Gerard

1 0

Re: [nznog] Charging for IPv6
by jdmwoolley＠ihug.co.nz 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

> A rough eyeball of the DSC stats for the last day or so > seems to indicate a little over 50% A queries and about > 10% AAAA. > Now THAT is an interesting statistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it means that a fair proportion of the queries coming in are TRYING to use v6, but presumably either aren't given a v6 address back or are unable to access it once obtained. Given that Vista will default to using v6 and fall back to v4 and the above statistic, one could surmise that if v6 was deployed, it would almost immediately get a fair portion of traffic. Indeed, when I tried pinging between two boxes at home that I had put Vista RC1 on I got a reply from a v6 address. Even though I'd specified the v4 address in the ping command Jonathan

1 0

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- mjl(a)luckie.org.nz wrote:----------------------- From: Matthew Luckie <mjl(a)luckie.org.nz> > This was discussed earlier in the recent flurry of email on the > subject. Also, this is why I was asking about VPRNs. However, I > missed the part on why STBs need unique IPs or why they need 2 per > box. : http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/real/100million.ram : : the answer to the second question is about a minute in. ---------------------------------------------------- Geez, I'm trying to listen, but the quality is so bad I can hardly understand it. Does anyone know where a 'clean' copy of the speech is? scott

2 1

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

> The major driver will be customer demand (read: $$$$), or the network : Funnily enough, I was reading this only yesterday: : : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/ipv6wv.mspx : : Have a look a the "Business Drivers" section especially. It's just funny numbers: "A recent report from NIST3 estimates that IPv6 could provide a US$10 billion per year benefit to the U.S. and the Japanese government estimates that IPv6 could generate a value of US$1.55 trillion." They give a reference to footnote 3. I searched footnote 3 (www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/ipv6wv.mspx) for the word trillion and only get one match: "The 128-bit address header in IPv6, in contrast, provides approximately 3.4x1038 addresses, enough to assign trillions of addresses to each person now on earth or even to every square inch of the earth’s surface." So, to segway into pet peeve of mine, this is the reason to allocate very large (for example: allocation of IPv4 /8 blocks to everyone that asked in the not so distant past) blocks of v6 space. Heck, no one will EVER need that much IP space! <8-) Show me the money, not funny numbers... scott Oops, I forgot: beer :-)

18 27

Another Topic
by Peter Youngquest 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hey All I am personally bored with the IPV4-6 discussion, but while everyone is up and talking. What is everyones opinion in regard to PBT. Does this have a place, can it work happily as a feeder into an MPLS cloud or will it remove the need for MPLS. Rgds Peter

4 5