Register.com has both email and phone based support. They make it a point to have enough operators such that you get to speak to a human being immediately. Also their call center is Canada and the folks speak English as their native language.
What's sad is that they've been doing this for a while (so have many other companies) but Netflix gets a story in the Times.
What you are doing is not switching to IPv6, you're running IPv6 in parallel. That's _trivial_ when you still have IPv4 addresses available to use.
Of course I am running dual stack- exactly how else do you plan on transitioning? If everyone dual stacked then we could turn off IPv4- til that happens there is no reason not to run dual stack- it's certainly simple enough.
You can make your web site available via IPv4 and IPv6- those with IPv6 connectivity connect via IPv6 and the rest connect via PIv4- once everyone is dual stacked you simply drop IPv4. It neither hard, nor complicated, and it works completely transparently- what's the problem? My desktop connects to www.kame.net via IPv6 and www.google.com via IPv4 and I don't do anything differently. How could you possibly simplify this?
Bringing IPv4's baggage into IPv6 would have been a terrible idea.
The IPv6 designers created a design that was bad for the public. Either they were stupid or they were evil.
How should they have made this work? Applications were not going to "just work" with a much longer IP address- the socket calls are incompatible and for good reasons. Perhaps if you bothered to read about the development you might understand why that is. The folks who created IPv6 are certainly not stupid- and definitely not evil.
Option #2 is what's already happening now (seems one entire mideast country is practically behind a single IPv4 address or at least just a few). Gradually lots of users will have RFC1918 IPv4 addresses that come out via NAT at the ISP. And why should the ISP care about IPv6 at this point? They can have hundreds of millions of subscribers - just reuse RFC1918 addresses behind a few hundred real IPv4 addresses.
The country you are referring to is proxying web connections- not NAT'ing all connections- big difference. VOIP and other services don't work well behind NAT- whereas sticking a web proxy in front of HTTP doesn't affect them.
And are we really, honestly going to take our network design cues from third world countries? When everyone else goes IPv6 they will have to switch whether they like it or not- plain and simple.
So why should ISPs and big companies even bother about moving to IPv6? It's all going their way - more control over their users. Users can only do P2P with each other, and they won't be able to do that over the "precious" links to networks owned by other ISPs. They only get to talk if the ISP "says so".
Despite what you think companies are moving to IPv6. C&W has already deployed a complete IPv6 backbone and they have customers using that backbone- the flexibility and ease of running dual stack have made it a no brainer. The fact is that companies realize starting early and working out the bugs now is a far better idea than waiting til the last second.
Simple- instead of an ISP getting 10/20 allocations under IPv4 and announcing 10 prefixes because they aren't contiguous- in IPv6 they would get a/32 and announce a single prefix.
In that case the IPv6 table is 1/10th the size. What will happen in reality is a different story but it should still result in a smaller table.
Future hardware isn't the problem. The problem is the large installed base of hardware that won't support larger tables. If they are going to have to upgrade to support larger IPv4 tables- then you might as well do IPv6 when you upgrade. That was my only point.
That's another thing that astounds me. NAT is a god awful hack and yet we seem to be perfectly ok with the myriad of hoops we have to jump through to make things work with it. IPSEC, P2P, VOIP, etc. all require dirty, hacked up code to work right with NAT (or bloated complex firewall/proxy code). We can do better than NAT damnit!
My workstation has had a public IP for as long as I can remember and the benefits are wonderful. I'd love to be able to give my phone systems and other devices public addresses without having to fight with STUN servers and other kludges just to make phone calls. One day I will be able to do exactly that.
NAT is not a win- it's a horrible, terrible loss for us. If you can't see that- well- then I feel sorry for you.
Most of these allocations were made _LONG_ before ARIN came into existence. The idea that ARIN could then come back and reclaim addresses they never had is laughable. All recent allocations permit ARIN to reclaim them if they aren't being used. These early allocations had no such provision for ARIN.
Just watch ARIN try and sieze a netblock- not going to happen. Apple, HP and the rest have legal teams that would bankrupt ARIN fighting it- and given that ARIN was created after the allocations- they stand an excellent chance of winning outright. It's a lose-lose situation for ARIN. IPv4 is dying- let's not try to bring it back please.
And you magically know about backbone routing? Sure, you rule because your small network took you an hour to do. Sweet.
I know about backbone routing because hmm... gee- look at that- it happens to be my day job. Woo! Go me! Had you read any of my other posts you might know that.
One of my edge routers: sh ip bgp summ: xx.xx.xx.xx 4 xxxx 1106300 59252 4186546 0 0 6d13h 217958... and so on.
Add that to a router with 200K routes. I think its going to take a bit more than that.
Wrong. Period. Try it some day. That was my entire point.
The story about my personal network was simply me relating the day it dawned on me how simple the migration to IPv6 is.
Oh yes, do you magically cut off ipv4? or do you slowly phase over?
You phase over obviously- the IPv6 routing table is a LOT smaller than the IPv4 table- the blocks were allocated more sensibly and aggregation is a lot better.
The real problem is the manpower and hardware expense to actually cut over / tunnel / nat/dns updates whatever you wanna do to make it happen.
The cost is a joke- you get an allocation- you sit down and plan- then just start enabling it- it doesn't have to run everywhere- you're not shutting down IPv4. Just start setting it up- you'll find it is a LOT simpler than you think.
I worked for UUNET back in 2000 on back bone routers. Its a headache to allocate a new circuit let alone completely redesign A LIVE NETWORK of that scale.
Why the hell would you allocate a new circuit? You're simply adding additional IP's to the interfaces.
Please don't act like this is hard. C&W made the switch a while back and encountered no significant problems- they even have customers already using it. See: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/steinegger.html for details.
A decade ago when ARIN was being formed there are sheer outrage at the size of the routing tables then. I think it was about 59K entires (but I could be wrong). I was told the cpus in big routers couldn't keep up.
This just goes to prove your ignorance. There were several times when routers were only _barely_ able to stay ahead of the table growth- and in many cases routers did have to be upgraded.
The routing table has been stable for a while and growth has been very small- mostly due to sensible allocation strategies. Suddenly splitting up existing allocations would cause far more harm than good- plain and simple.
At the time there was also serious concern that a million names in com would break the entire net. Now there's about, what 40 million com names? My email and webpages still seem to work.
I think you mean 70 million. That said- there was concern- questions about whether it could handle the growth- not widespread agreement that it wouldn't work. And the reason it does work is because of incredible infrastructure investments to allow it to work- money spent on GTLD servers, big pipes, multiple datacenters and large anycast groups, etc.
I'm supposed to sweat a 25% increase? What happened to the credo of scalability? 25% and it's the death of the net predicted? Please.
I don't care what you sweat- the recent router crashes in Japan were likely the result of insufficient capacity in the routers- and you want to just increase the table size by 25%? Get real.
ARIN gets paid for V6 allocations. I'd love to see the accounting for taking something from some company for free then resellng it for boucoup bucks.
ARIN gets paid for v6 and v4 allocations. A/48, for example, is only $1200 (similar to a/21 under IPv4)- if you think ARIN is making money on this then you're nuts. The paperwork and administrative costs use up that $1200 pretty damned fast.
Exactly how many routers do you run with a full table- and what models are they?
Your argument is specious- ISP's have no reason not to support IPv6 (there simply isn't any cost to doing so aside from the one time allocation fee which is a joke). I'm not even talking about home users here- I'm talking about businesses with T1's and hosting providers- all of whom have customers that could and often would use IPv6 were it there- but it simply isn't.
Once ISP's actually supported it the consumer hardware would show up shortly afterwards. The question is what are these ISP's going to do? Wait til the last second? That's just stupid.
My only point was that the barrier to entry is so low for an ISP wanting to implement IPv6 that they should just get off their asses and do it already.
As for end users- setting up an IPv6 tunnel is trivial, works beautifully, and gets you a/64 network to play with- go ahead- give it a try- it's a lot of fun and certainly shouldn't turn you off from IPv6 (hell Linux and *BSD both can act as IPv6 routers which then tunnel traffic past the broken linksys- and it isn't hard to set up).
That said- 2620's and 2621's (and other similar gear) has come way down in price and would be easy enough to buy on ebay and deploy.
Agreed- but my point was simply that while much of the backbone can now do IPv6- most ISP's and hosting providers can't/won't even if you ask them.
As soon as IPv6 transit is avaliable everywhere- then the only thing we need to do is swap out the linksys router for one that supports IPv6 and let the customer run the program on the CDROM they were sent that enables IPv6 for them. Stateless autoconfig takes care of the rest and is a beautiful thing.
My high school had (and still has) a/16 (Class B network) and I am sure they aren't using most of it.
As for proving you will use it- several factors come into play there- the rules back then were not as restrictive (basically "how many might you one day need?" not "how many are you using right now and will you use in 3 months?"), CIDR did not exist and NAT did not exist. My high school use to have all public addresses and used a lot more than a Class C so they got a Class B. Now- they use NAT so they don't need the addresses- but why should they give them up?
Apple was given a/8 because CIDR did not exist- plain and simple. My High School had (and still has) a class B for heavens sake- and I'm sure they're not using much of it.
Everyone in this thread is sooooo wrong it isn't funny.
First off- no one in their right mind is going to give up their addresses.
Secondly- let's not keep IPv4 around any longer than it has to be. Please let it die already. Moving to IPv6 is just not that hard- including OSPFv3, mBGP, tunnels, filters and route-maps it took me an hour or so of actual configuration time to enable IPv6- for gods sake- let's just do it already.
Finally- breaking up/8's into lot's of smaller networks is a TERRIBLE idea. There are already about 200k routes in the global routing table. Splitting up a single class A up into/20's (the current standard allocation) would increase the size of the table by 4k entries. Do that for a dozen networks and you've just increased the global routing table by 25%. That's an AWFUL idea. IPv6 avoids this problem with a stricter and more sensible heirarchy that allows for a LOT more aggregation.
The fact is- you don't know anything about backbone routing so please don't tell ARIN how to do their job.
This is so patently wrong I don't know where to begin-
My home network sits behind a Cisco 2621 running an IPv6 IOS image- and I have a/64 and a tunnel to tunnelbroker.net (By Hurrican Electric). It took ten minutes to set up- and another minute to enable IPv6 on my FreeBSD desktop- at that point I was able to get to www.kame.net via IPv6 with no problems.
I even set up an IPSEC / GRE tunnel with a friend of mine along with mBGP (multiprotocol BGP). No problems. I set up route-maps and filters all without a problem. My friend and I were then able to get to each others Unix servers via ssh over IPv6 using hostnames that resolved via AAAA records.
I also run OSPFv3 internally- again without incident. Deploying IPv6 to my network took a grand total of an hour- and we're talking about BGP, OSPF, GRE IPSEC tunnels and so on.
In fact- the change was so easy I immediately began a project to upgrade my company to IPv6. So far it has been incredibly easily and completely transparent to everyone.
What's holding IPv6 back is two things: public perception that the change will be difficult (completely unfounded) and the unwillingness of anyone to just start deploying it. I have SpeakEasy for my home connection (business class SDSL with a/27) and they neither offer IPv6- nor do they even have any IPv6 plans (or so customer service told me. This is just sad. The same goes for my employers upstream provider- and backbone provider.
-sirket Senior Network Engineer for a company you've definitely heard of
Juniper M7i with 1 onboard gigabit port and a quad gigabit card (oversubscribed 4:1) and 16Mpps forwarding speed- $52k.
Cisco 7604 with Sup32 and 9 gigabit ports and 15Mpps forwarding speed- $18k.
Juniper definitely makes a better router in many cases- but does it justify paying three times as much?
I love both systems- and I would run Juniper everywhere if I could (for no other reason than the single JunOS software image) but they are just price prohbitive sometimes.
And if you really want raw speed- you use Foundry.
Effectively, it's a two stage lookup - BGP will tell you that your grandmother lives in Chicago, but you need IS-IS to tell you which highway to get on.
This is a terrible analogy. It isn't a two stage lookup- it's a single routing table lookup. BGP populates the routing table with routes it learns from external autonomous systems, and an interior routing protocol like OSPF populates the routing table with routes learned from within the autonomous system itself. Where both protocols know of the same route then the protocol weight determines which route gets added.
That said- if your whole network comes crashing down then you've done something amazingly stupid- like run the same IOS version on every router in your network- or not put enough memory in your router- or god only knows what else.
A) How are you using BGP in this instance? It sure as hell isn't with the DSL and cable providers- neither of whom ever offer such service levels even with business class services.
B) Perhaps you are tunneling BGP sessions back to your headquarters- but it sounds like you are referring to a single AS here and wouldn't an IRP such as OSPF make more sense?
C) If your line went down- BGP shouldn't need to wait 60 seconds to tell- it should detect the link down and immediately drop those routes from the routing table and install the routes it already knows from the still working link (Unless you don't have cable/dsl cards in your router and are instead relying on separate hardware bridges).
D) I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "pains of dealing with bgp pathways with screwy asynchronous upload and download speeds." Cable is faster- fine it's primary. Cable goes down it moves to DSL- where's the issue?
Perhaps you could elaborate?
The fact that you sincerely suggested replacing "crappy" Cisco gear with Linux makes your whole post laughable. While a lot of Cisco equipment does suck- you don't replace it with Linux- you replace it with Juniper or Foundry.
There isn't a Linux box in the world that can route 4Mpps let alone the 400Mpps+ that high end (not backbone) routers can handle (Even a basic Foundry I just looked into can do 40Mpps per card for a total of 240Mpps in a 6 slot chassis- and the numbers just keep going up).
Your comment about OpenView is equally laughable- your "guy" may not have had OpenView set up worth a damn- but Nagios is a fucking joke compared with what OpenView is capable of.
If you're going to do VOIP and want it to just work without all the headaches- then use MPLS. You can do all the QoS you want to over your VPN's- it's not going to have any effect on your traffic while passing through the public Internet.
Seriously though- please elaborate on your mad BGP 5k1llz- I'd love to hear how you set all this up.
A user should have a combination- not the lock. A user leaves and his code is removed- the lock code isn't changed. In addition- a user uses the same combination on every single lock. It's hardly complicated. It sounds like the systems this municipality used was just broken.
This is exactly the problem. People end up with little or no recourse against law enforcement abuses. Worse yet is the fact that the average American just doesn't care.
I just bought my own computer for $400, brought the damned thing in to work and use that. If they have a problem with it then they can supply me with a computer to use. I have a company laptop that I access via rdesktop from my Unix desktop (FreeBSD running straight sawfish). It helps that I have 8 - 19" LCD's connected to this one computer (all via DVI which is nice) via 2 quad Matrox G450 cards.
I've been with SpeakEasy since 2000. I've signed countless other people up with SpeakEasy. The moment I got the email this morning I replied to it. I listed all of Best Buy's awful tactics, said I would never shop at Best Buy so why would I want my Internet access from them? I asked them if they couldn't possibly have found a better match than an awful retailer like Best Buy.
I think every SpeakEasy customer should send them an email and let them know what we think of this. I appreciate that the people who founded SpeakEasy want to make money for all their hard work- but they did so by building a community and now they are spitting on it. Hold out for a better match damnit.
Ironically enough this was actually the subject line of a spam I got this morning- I read it, thought it was a joke and went to SpeakEasy's web site only to be horrified by what I saw.
Slashdot Mirror
The article does not extrapolate to 384 GB of storage- they extrapolate to 384 Gb of storage which is 48 GB of storage. bits != bytes.
Register.com has both email and phone based support. They make it a point to have enough operators such that you get to speak to a human being immediately. Also their call center is Canada and the folks speak English as their native language.
What's sad is that they've been doing this for a while (so have many other companies) but Netflix gets a story in the Times.
-sirket
Wow where to begin-
What you are doing is not switching to IPv6, you're running IPv6 in parallel. That's _trivial_ when you still have IPv4 addresses available to use.
Of course I am running dual stack- exactly how else do you plan on transitioning? If everyone dual stacked then we could turn off IPv4- til that happens there is no reason not to run dual stack- it's certainly simple enough.
You can make your web site available via IPv4 and IPv6- those with IPv6 connectivity connect via IPv6 and the rest connect via PIv4- once everyone is dual stacked you simply drop IPv4. It neither hard, nor complicated, and it works completely transparently- what's the problem? My desktop connects to www.kame.net via IPv6 and www.google.com via IPv4 and I don't do anything differently. How could you possibly simplify this?
Bringing IPv4's baggage into IPv6 would have been a terrible idea.
The IPv6 designers created a design that was bad for the public. Either they were stupid or they were evil.
How should they have made this work? Applications were not going to "just work" with a much longer IP address- the socket calls are incompatible and for good reasons. Perhaps if you bothered to read about the development you might understand why that is. The folks who created IPv6 are certainly not stupid- and definitely not evil.
Option #2 is what's already happening now (seems one entire mideast country is practically behind a single IPv4 address or at least just a few). Gradually lots of users will have RFC1918 IPv4 addresses that come out via NAT at the ISP. And why should the ISP care about IPv6 at this point? They can have hundreds of millions of subscribers - just reuse RFC1918 addresses behind a few hundred real IPv4 addresses.
The country you are referring to is proxying web connections- not NAT'ing all connections- big difference. VOIP and other services don't work well behind NAT- whereas sticking a web proxy in front of HTTP doesn't affect them.
And are we really, honestly going to take our network design cues from third world countries? When everyone else goes IPv6 they will have to switch whether they like it or not- plain and simple.
So why should ISPs and big companies even bother about moving to IPv6? It's all going their way - more control over their users. Users can only do P2P with each other, and they won't be able to do that over the "precious" links to networks owned by other ISPs. They only get to talk if the ISP "says so".
Despite what you think companies are moving to IPv6. C&W has already deployed a complete IPv6 backbone and they have customers using that backbone- the flexibility and ease of running dual stack have made it a no brainer. The fact is that companies realize starting early and working out the bugs now is a far better idea than waiting til the last second.
-sirket
Simple- instead of an ISP getting 10 /20 allocations under IPv4 and announcing 10 prefixes because they aren't contiguous- in IPv6 they would get a /32 and announce a single prefix.
In that case the IPv6 table is 1/10th the size. What will happen in reality is a different story but it should still result in a smaller table.
-sirket
Future hardware isn't the problem. The problem is the large installed base of hardware that won't support larger tables. If they are going to have to upgrade to support larger IPv4 tables- then you might as well do IPv6 when you upgrade. That was my only point.
-sirket
That's another thing that astounds me. NAT is a god awful hack and yet we seem to be perfectly ok with the myriad of hoops we have to jump through to make things work with it. IPSEC, P2P, VOIP, etc. all require dirty, hacked up code to work right with NAT (or bloated complex firewall/proxy code). We can do better than NAT damnit!
My workstation has had a public IP for as long as I can remember and the benefits are wonderful. I'd love to be able to give my phone systems and other devices public addresses without having to fight with STUN servers and other kludges just to make phone calls. One day I will be able to do exactly that.
NAT is not a win- it's a horrible, terrible loss for us. If you can't see that- well- then I feel sorry for you.
-sirket
Wow! Excellent response! I have been put in my place. Jolly good show!
Most of these allocations were made _LONG_ before ARIN came into existence. The idea that ARIN could then come back and reclaim addresses they never had is laughable. All recent allocations permit ARIN to reclaim them if they aren't being used. These early allocations had no such provision for ARIN.
Just watch ARIN try and sieze a netblock- not going to happen. Apple, HP and the rest have legal teams that would bankrupt ARIN fighting it- and given that ARIN was created after the allocations- they stand an excellent chance of winning outright. It's a lose-lose situation for ARIN. IPv4 is dying- let's not try to bring it back please.
-sirket
And you magically know about backbone routing? Sure, you rule because your small network took you an hour to do. Sweet.
...
/dns updates whatever you wanna do to make it happen.
I know about backbone routing because hmm... gee- look at that- it happens to be my day job. Woo! Go me! Had you read any of my other posts you might know that.
One of my edge routers:
sh ip bgp summ:
xx.xx.xx.xx 4 xxxx 1106300 59252 4186546 0 0 6d13h 217958
and so on.
Add that to a router with 200K routes. I think its going to take a bit more than that.
Wrong. Period. Try it some day. That was my entire point.
The story about my personal network was simply me relating the day it dawned on me how simple the migration to IPv6 is.
Oh yes, do you magically cut off ipv4? or do you slowly phase over?
You phase over obviously- the IPv6 routing table is a LOT smaller than the IPv4 table- the blocks were allocated more sensibly and aggregation is a lot better.
The real problem is the manpower and hardware expense to actually cut over / tunnel / nat
The cost is a joke- you get an allocation- you sit down and plan- then just start enabling it- it doesn't have to run everywhere- you're not shutting down IPv4. Just start setting it up- you'll find it is a LOT simpler than you think.
I worked for UUNET back in 2000 on back bone routers. Its a headache to allocate a new circuit let alone completely redesign A LIVE NETWORK of that scale.
Why the hell would you allocate a new circuit? You're simply adding additional IP's to the interfaces.
Please don't act like this is hard. C&W made the switch a while back and encountered no significant problems- they even have customers already using it. See:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/steinegger.html
for details.
-sirket
A decade ago when ARIN was being formed there are sheer outrage at the size of the routing tables then. I think it was about 59K entires (but I could be wrong). I was told the cpus in big routers couldn't keep up.
/48, for example, is only $1200 (similar to a /21 under IPv4)- if you think ARIN is making money on this then you're nuts. The paperwork and administrative costs use up that $1200 pretty damned fast.
This just goes to prove your ignorance. There were several times when routers were only _barely_ able to stay ahead of the table growth- and in many cases routers did have to be upgraded.
The routing table has been stable for a while and growth has been very small- mostly due to sensible allocation strategies. Suddenly splitting up existing allocations would cause far more harm than good- plain and simple.
At the time there was also serious concern that a million names in com would break the entire net. Now there's about, what 40 million com names? My email and webpages still seem to work.
I think you mean 70 million. That said- there was concern- questions about whether it could handle the growth- not widespread agreement that it wouldn't work. And the reason it does work is because of incredible infrastructure investments to allow it to work- money spent on GTLD servers, big pipes, multiple datacenters and large anycast groups, etc.
I'm supposed to sweat a 25% increase? What happened to the credo of scalability? 25% and it's the death of the net predicted? Please.
I don't care what you sweat- the recent router crashes in Japan were likely the result of insufficient capacity in the routers- and you want to just increase the table size by 25%? Get real.
ARIN gets paid for V6 allocations. I'd love to see the accounting for taking something from some company for free then resellng it for boucoup bucks.
ARIN gets paid for v6 and v4 allocations. A
Exactly how many routers do you run with a full table- and what models are they?
-sirket
Your argument is specious- ISP's have no reason not to support IPv6 (there simply isn't any cost to doing so aside from the one time allocation fee which is a joke). I'm not even talking about home users here- I'm talking about businesses with T1's and hosting providers- all of whom have customers that could and often would use IPv6 were it there- but it simply isn't.
/64 network to play with- go ahead- give it a try- it's a lot of fun and certainly shouldn't turn you off from IPv6 (hell Linux and *BSD both can act as IPv6 routers which then tunnel traffic past the broken linksys- and it isn't hard to set up).
Once ISP's actually supported it the consumer hardware would show up shortly afterwards. The question is what are these ISP's going to do? Wait til the last second? That's just stupid.
My only point was that the barrier to entry is so low for an ISP wanting to implement IPv6 that they should just get off their asses and do it already.
As for end users- setting up an IPv6 tunnel is trivial, works beautifully, and gets you a
That said- 2620's and 2621's (and other similar gear) has come way down in price and would be easy enough to buy on ebay and deploy.
-sirket
Agreed- but my point was simply that while much of the backbone can now do IPv6- most ISP's and hosting providers can't/won't even if you ask them.
As soon as IPv6 transit is avaliable everywhere- then the only thing we need to do is swap out the linksys router for one that supports IPv6 and let the customer run the program on the CDROM they were sent that enables IPv6 for them. Stateless autoconfig takes care of the rest and is a beautiful thing.
-sirket
My high school had (and still has) a /16 (Class B network) and I am sure they aren't using most of it.
As for proving you will use it- several factors come into play there- the rules back then were not as restrictive (basically "how many might you one day need?" not "how many are you using right now and will you use in 3 months?"), CIDR did not exist and NAT did not exist. My high school use to have all public addresses and used a lot more than a Class C so they got a Class B. Now- they use NAT so they don't need the addresses- but why should they give them up?
-sirket
Apple was given a /8 because CIDR did not exist- plain and simple. My High School had (and still has) a class B for heavens sake- and I'm sure they're not using much of it.
-sirket
Everyone in this thread is sooooo wrong it isn't funny.
/8's into lot's of smaller networks is a TERRIBLE idea. There are already about 200k routes in the global routing table. Splitting up a single class A up into /20's (the current standard allocation) would increase the size of the table by 4k entries. Do that for a dozen networks and you've just increased the global routing table by 25%. That's an AWFUL idea. IPv6 avoids this problem with a stricter and more sensible heirarchy that allows for a LOT more aggregation.
First off- no one in their right mind is going to give up their addresses.
Secondly- let's not keep IPv4 around any longer than it has to be. Please let it die already. Moving to IPv6 is just not that hard- including OSPFv3, mBGP, tunnels, filters and route-maps it took me an hour or so of actual configuration time to enable IPv6- for gods sake- let's just do it already.
Finally- breaking up
The fact is- you don't know anything about backbone routing so please don't tell ARIN how to do their job.
-sirket
This is so patently wrong I don't know where to begin-
/64 and a tunnel to tunnelbroker.net (By Hurrican Electric). It took ten minutes to set up- and another minute to enable IPv6 on my FreeBSD desktop- at that point I was able to get to www.kame.net via IPv6 with no problems.
/27) and they neither offer IPv6- nor do they even have any IPv6 plans (or so customer service told me. This is just sad. The same goes for my employers upstream provider- and backbone provider.
My home network sits behind a Cisco 2621 running an IPv6 IOS image- and I have a
I even set up an IPSEC / GRE tunnel with a friend of mine along with mBGP (multiprotocol BGP). No problems. I set up route-maps and filters all without a problem. My friend and I were then able to get to each others Unix servers via ssh over IPv6 using hostnames that resolved via AAAA records.
I also run OSPFv3 internally- again without incident. Deploying IPv6 to my network took a grand total of an hour- and we're talking about BGP, OSPF, GRE IPSEC tunnels and so on.
In fact- the change was so easy I immediately began a project to upgrade my company to IPv6. So far it has been incredibly easily and completely transparent to everyone.
What's holding IPv6 back is two things: public perception that the change will be difficult (completely unfounded) and the unwillingness of anyone to just start deploying it. I have SpeakEasy for my home connection (business class SDSL with a
-sirket
Senior Network Engineer for a company you've definitely heard of
I take exception to the expensive part-
Juniper M7i with 1 onboard gigabit port and a quad gigabit card (oversubscribed 4:1) and 16Mpps forwarding speed- $52k.
Cisco 7604 with Sup32 and 9 gigabit ports and 15Mpps forwarding speed- $18k.
Juniper definitely makes a better router in many cases- but does it justify paying three times as much?
I love both systems- and I would run Juniper everywhere if I could (for no other reason than the single JunOS software image) but they are just price prohbitive sometimes.
And if you really want raw speed- you use Foundry.
-sirket
Effectively, it's a two stage lookup - BGP will tell you that your grandmother lives in Chicago, but you need IS-IS to tell you which highway to get on.
This is a terrible analogy. It isn't a two stage lookup- it's a single routing table lookup. BGP populates the routing table with routes it learns from external autonomous systems, and an interior routing protocol like OSPF populates the routing table with routes learned from within the autonomous system itself. Where both protocols know of the same route then the protocol weight determines which route gets added.
That said- if your whole network comes crashing down then you've done something amazingly stupid- like run the same IOS version on every router in your network- or not put enough memory in your router- or god only knows what else.
-sirket
A) How are you using BGP in this instance? It sure as hell isn't with the DSL and cable providers- neither of whom ever offer such service levels even with business class services.
B) Perhaps you are tunneling BGP sessions back to your headquarters- but it sounds like you are referring to a single AS here and wouldn't an IRP such as OSPF make more sense?
C) If your line went down- BGP shouldn't need to wait 60 seconds to tell- it should detect the link down and immediately drop those routes from the routing table and install the routes it already knows from the still working link (Unless you don't have cable/dsl cards in your router and are instead relying on separate hardware bridges).
D) I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "pains of dealing with bgp pathways with screwy asynchronous upload and download speeds." Cable is faster- fine it's primary. Cable goes down it moves to DSL- where's the issue?
Perhaps you could elaborate?
The fact that you sincerely suggested replacing "crappy" Cisco gear with Linux makes your whole post laughable. While a lot of Cisco equipment does suck- you don't replace it with Linux- you replace it with Juniper or Foundry.
There isn't a Linux box in the world that can route 4Mpps let alone the 400Mpps+ that high end (not backbone) routers can handle (Even a basic Foundry I just looked into can do 40Mpps per card for a total of 240Mpps in a 6 slot chassis- and the numbers just keep going up).
Your comment about OpenView is equally laughable- your "guy" may not have had OpenView set up worth a damn- but Nagios is a fucking joke compared with what OpenView is capable of.
If you're going to do VOIP and want it to just work without all the headaches- then use MPLS. You can do all the QoS you want to over your VPN's- it's not going to have any effect on your traffic while passing through the public Internet.
Seriously though- please elaborate on your mad BGP 5k1llz- I'd love to hear how you set all this up.
-sirket
Glad to know the trolls on slashdot are now so young they don't even know all the classic Simpsons references... Oh well.
A user should have a combination- not the lock. A user leaves and his code is removed- the lock code isn't changed. In addition- a user uses the same combination on every single lock. It's hardly complicated. It sounds like the systems this municipality used was just broken.
This is exactly the problem. People end up with little or no recourse against law enforcement abuses. Worse yet is the fact that the average American just doesn't care.
Short days that get dark early are depressing. The early change made a big difference for me and I could not care less if it did not save any power.
-sirket
I just bought my own computer for $400, brought the damned thing in to work and use that. If they have a problem with it then they can supply me with a computer to use. I have a company laptop that I access via rdesktop from my Unix desktop (FreeBSD running straight sawfish). It helps that I have 8 - 19" LCD's connected to this one computer (all via DVI which is nice) via 2 quad Matrox G450 cards.
-sirket
I've been with SpeakEasy since 2000. I've signed countless other people up with SpeakEasy. The moment I got the email this morning I replied to it. I listed all of Best Buy's awful tactics, said I would never shop at Best Buy so why would I want my Internet access from them? I asked them if they couldn't possibly have found a better match than an awful retailer like Best Buy.
I think every SpeakEasy customer should send them an email and let them know what we think of this. I appreciate that the people who founded SpeakEasy want to make money for all their hard work- but they did so by building a community and now they are spitting on it. Hold out for a better match damnit.
Ironically enough this was actually the subject line of a spam I got this morning- I read it, thought it was a joke and went to SpeakEasy's web site only to be horrified by what I saw.
-Don