gmane.org.operators.ipv6

Re: Looking for support.netapp.com contact

Bernhard Schmidt — 2013-05-14T21:46:31

Am 03.04.2013 20:03, schrieb Bernhard Schmidt:


6 weeks later it is still broken. If SOMEONE is considering buying from 
them I would appreciate some bashing of the sales clerk, maybe that 
would wake them up.

Bernhard

Re: http://www.6assistnet/ - call for test

Templin, Fred L — 2013-05-13T21:53:48

Hi - coming into this late and just noticing this thread, let's
not forget that there are many other reasons for tunneling besides
just IP protocol version bridging (including routing control,
security, mobility management, etc.). So, we have developed a
tunneling approach that covers all of these needs via a hybrid
tunnel broker / NBMA architecture with built in route optimization.
We have also taken care of the tunnel MTU issue to provide a
1500B-clean path.

The approach is known as IRON, and is made up of its constituent
technologies SEAL, VET and AERO:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-ironbis/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-seal/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-vet/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6706/

With IRON, a source tunnel endpoint sends initial packets via
a server that acts very much like a tunnel broker. The server
forwards the packets then sends a Redirect message (according
to the NBMA model) back to the source so that future

Lebanon & IPv6

Jeroen Massar — 2013-05-13T14:53:26

That is a political problem that needs to be resolved in your country.

Unfortunately there is little that can be done technically towards this.
(the technical solutions exist, you are just not allowed to use them
apparently, which is sad)


Then make them concerned with business cases, and in the interest of
coming tax money for the next century...


As I mentioned in a different part of this overlong thread, if you are
using tunneling you are most likely bypassing your local policies
(laws?). You might want to check that up before somebody disappears...


Yes, it is indeed really good to know that Lebanon has such a restricted
view onto the Internet. This at least explains why Lebanon can not do
native. Tunnels are still not the solution though and these kind of
restrictions are definitely not the problem for the majority of
locations where ISPs claim to not be able to get native IPv6.

Obviously somebody needs to convince your government that they way the
Internet is connected now is not how the Internet

RE: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

ISOC Lebanon — 2013-05-13T12:19:15

Hi Sander an d all,

As mentioned by Sander all international connections must go through the
incumbent telco in Lebanon, and they don't do IPv6 yet and don't seem to be
concerned by that. So all the ISPs that do IPv6 have to do it in a
restricted manner with tunnels to HE, OCCAID, etc.

I believe that transparency helps. i.e. publishing facts is the least one
can do to recognize those who worked hard and facilitated the IPv6
deployment in their environment and expose those who are still hindering
and/or blocking such deployment. 

Best regards,
Nabil.

-----
Nabil Bukhalid
President
ISOC Lebanon
P.O.Box 113-6596
Hamra, Lebanon 
 
M: +961 (0)3 779116
E: nabil.bukhalid< at >isoc.org.lb 
 
W . Fb . T 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander< at >steffann.nl] 
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:36 PM
To: Kurt Jaeger
Cc: ipv6-ops< at >lists.cluenet.de forum; nabil.bukhalid< at >isoc.org.lb
Subject: Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Hi,

carriers ?

I know in Lebanon it involves political games. I'm

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Max Tulyev — 2013-05-12T08:14:32

This will stop when <s>peace in the whole world</s>native IPv6 to every
home will occur, i.e. never ;)

On 12.05.13 10:41, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Tayeb Meftah — 2013-05-12T08:11:19

Use questions like
100+250=
If i say 350 then pass me
MediaWiki do it

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 12 mai 2013 à 09:58, Jeroen Massar <jeroen< at >massar.ch> a écrit :

On 2013-05-10 20:25, Scott Weeks wrote:

There are 5 prefixes in Algeria:


http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=dz

----------------------------------------


Broken website.  The text in the "Image Verification" box says

"404: not found / no cookies"


As stated there, you do need cookies as no cookies no captcha.

Note that the captcha is solely there due to all the webscrapers out
there that disrespect robots.txt.

On 2013-05-10 20:48, Tayeb Meftah wrote:

Also captcha not good for me as a blind


Unfortunately the captchas do not provide a way around that as there is
no non-picture version. The page you would access would have an
overwealth of information that for a screenreader would be too much too
grok.

Greets,
Jeroen

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Jeroen Massar — 2013-05-12T07:58:06

As stated there, you do need cookies as no cookies no captcha.

Note that the captcha is solely there due to all the webscrapers out
there that disrespect robots.txt.

On 2013-05-10 20:48, Tayeb Meftah wrote:

Unfortunately the captchas do not provide a way around that as there is
no non-picture version. The page you would access would have an
overwealth of information that for a screenreader would be too much too
grok.

Greets,
 Jeroen

RE: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Ivan Pepelnjak — 2013-05-12T07:41:21

Pim’s reply prompted me to actually read the docs on the web site. LANE reinvented on top of IP. RFC 1925 sect 11 strikes again. Will this bridging madness never stop?

 

Sorry, couldn’t resist

Ivan

 

From: ipv6-ops-bounces+ipepelnjak=gmail.com< at >lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+ipepelnjak=gmail.com< at >lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Pim van Pelt
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:27 PM
To: Max Tulyev
Cc: ipv6-ops< at >lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

 

Hoi,

 

2013/5/10 Max Tulyev <maxtul< at >netassist.kiev.ua>

The website of that project is http://www.6assist.net/
It acts like a virtual media IXP, and anybody have own ASN can join it.

As others pointed out, I do not really see the problem you are solving [well, I see it, but I do not agree that the problem exists]. If you look at the larger more established tunnelbrokers, they will invariably all have multiple points of presence, HE / SixXS as two examples. Here, the ISP takes care of the IPv6 network, and the IPv4

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Max Tulyev — 2013-05-11T15:16:39

Hi!

On 11.05.13 13:27, Pim van Pelt wrote:

If you can't see the problem from one point of view from one point of
globe - it doesn't mean it didn't really exist in another ;)


Yes.


Yes, but threads it as broadcast.

It is not about particular IP protocol like IPv4/IPv6, but about general
Ethernet, so even IPX will work.


No. In fact, it might be useful in some places, so may be it is a good
idea to implement for example LZO. But compression is not about MTU at
all. You can't guarantee EVERY packet will be compressed to fit is
certain smaller packet.

So, decreasing of MTU is a real disadvantage of ANY tunneling
environment. You should live with it.


None yet. It will be realized if people will consider the whole idea
good to be developped further.


Broadcasts don't work, everything else will. For example, if you
established ARP already, traffic will continue to flow.

In current implementation, by trying to send every broadcast packet, it
will be try to reconnect to the hub.

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Pim van Pelt — 2013-05-11T10:27:04

Hoi,

2013/5/10 Max Tulyev <maxtul< at >netassist.kiev.ua>

As others pointed out, I do not really see the problem you are solving
[well, I see it, but I do not agree that the problem exists]. If you look
at the larger more established tunnelbrokers, they will invariably all have
multiple points of presence, HE / SixXS as two examples. Here, the ISP
takes care of the IPv6 network, and the IPv4 endpoint is topologically
close. But, I will agree that some localities do not have any reasonable
coverage, and in those cases, MPTP may help.

Some questions:
- does this infrastructure bridge ethernet  to IP (that's what I believe
from your website)? I ask because somebody may be interested to use this
for IPv4 as well.
- does it support (ethernet / IP) multicast (v4 and/or v6?)
- does it use compression? If it doesn't, then what is your 'shared
segment' MTU? Does that work well for you? Note: if you use header
compression you can probably easily retrieve the wasted bytes in protocol
overhead, and still provide a 1500b M

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Brian E Carpenter — 2013-05-10T20:30:43

I have to say, I think this is the right philosophy. Having helped to
propose a couple of approaches to peer IPv6-over-IPv4 (RFC2529 + RFC3056)
when we needed subversive deployment techniques, I think the time has come
to forget this approach and simply insist on native support.

I fully realise that some ISPs have still not got the message.

    Brian

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Gert Doering — 2013-05-10T19:58:07

Hi,

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 07:28:25PM +0200, Marcin Gondek wrote:

HE has a monopoly because people are accepting upstreams that have no IPv6.

Vouch with your money.  We have done this 10+ years ago: "hey, salesman,
if you want our business, you have to have IPv6.  Do not bother calling
again if you are not offering IPv6".

10+ years later, even Level(3) and Cogent are offering IPv6 - and I can
well remember those salespeople that told me "IPv6 is no good, one day
you'll be our customer even without IPv6".  Seems they learned in the end.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Tayeb Meftah — 2013-05-10T18:48:58

Also captcha not good for me as a blind

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 10 mai 2013 à 20:26, Scott Weeks <surfer< at >mauigateway.com> a écrit :

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Scott Weeks — 2013-05-10T18:25:53


--- jeroen< at >massar.ch wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen< at >massar.ch>

There are 5 prefixes in Algeria:

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=dz
----------------------------------------


Broken website.  The text in the "Image Verification" box says 
"404: not found / no cookies"

scott

RE: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Marcin Gondek — 2013-05-10T18:19:37

Hi,

IPv6 is not possible in Poland for end-user. For DSL like me.

Also there no possible to get IPv6 native on my dedicated server on DE.

Also as far I ask some time ago there was no chance to get announce my PI
IPv6 address on DE.

Why PI? Because when I move to another DC, I want to go with my address
together - that's a PI.

Now I not interested how it is now, I'm happy with this situation what I
have.

About PI end-user is not always free, I can even pay for tunneled bgp
session, but there is no such offers. Even if I'm small as I wrote can pay
for good transit and reachability. Who offer that option? For private? NO
ONE.

About downstream, my downstream is using me as backup, peering, and for
mostly test usage, my and my downstream know = no SLA, also my upstream also
doesn't give my any SLA, just best-efford and I happy with that.

Because of this I have more than two upstreams.

No matter of this, my example is:
* to small to be native or even technicaly non-possible
* "big pipe" which provide me n

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Jeroen Massar — 2013-05-10T18:03:56

And like all SixXS PoPs does not do BGP as tunnels are for end-sites,
not for ISPs who have their own prefixes.

To quote from http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=bgppeering

-----------
Do you provide BGP peering?

You should receive decent connectivity through your tunnel which is
hosted by us. As SixXS doesn't handle any routing we cannot do any BGP
peering.

For peering we base on the Minimum IPv6 Peering requirements (MIPP)[1]
to improve quality of the global IPv6 network. Tunnel users are
end-users and are at the edges of the IPv6 Internet and should not be
doing their own routing at all. The ISP's handle that already in a
aggregated manner. A peering would not be beneficial and would rarely be
for you and thus we are not interested in it.

If you are a ISP yourself with your own DFP and AS number connect to an
IX and peer there with other ISP's. Contact those ISP's in question to
do the peering. See FAQ: Where can I get native IPv6 transit?[2] for a
list of providers.

We can however setup a p

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Jernej Horvat — 2013-05-10T17:55:40

Ivan Pepelnjak < at > 10. 05. 2013 13:18:

https://www.sixxs.net/pops/amis/ is closer O:)

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Jeroen Massar — 2013-05-10T17:49:42


Given the fact that various real transits exist and provide native IPv6,
how exactly are they having a "monopoly"? Especially given when some
real traffic starts flowing like in IPv4 the "freeness" is likely going
the way of the dodo[1] quite quickly


And what is the reason for it being tunneled?


remarks:        === This ASN is IPv6 only ===
remarks:        === U P S T R E A M ===
remarks:        INOTEL (PL/PL)
mp-import:      afi ipv6.unicast from AS44514 accept ANY
mp-export:      afi ipv6.unicast to AS44514 announce AS-EUTPNET
remarks:        CDP (PL/PL)
mp-import:      afi ipv6.unicast from AS12968 accept ANY
mp-export:      afi ipv6.unicast to AS12968 announce AS-EUTPNET
remarks:        HE (DE/DE)
mp-import:      afi ipv6.unicast from AS6939 accept ANY
mp-export:      afi ipv6.unicast to AS6939 announce AS-EUTPNET
remarks:        INIT7 (DE/DE)
mp-import:      afi ipv6.unicast from AS13030 accept ANY
mp-export:      afi ipv6.unicast to AS13030 announce AS-EUTPNET
remarks:        DA-NET (DE/ID)
mp-im

RE: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Marcin Gondek — 2013-05-10T17:28:25

Hi,

As far it's dedicated for IPv6 PI holder (not always it is a ISP - like me)
which are not a transit providers for other than it's own users or usage,
the idea from NetAssist is OK.

I'm really happy that more IPv6 initatives are comming. Today mostly HE
taking all tunneled bgp session, it's good to have some alternative and
redundancy for IPv6 traffic. Maybe HE will loose monopoly of this.

Happy BGP-tunneled NetAssist user.

AS56662 (open for IPv6 peering, only tunneled :-))

Regards,

PS: Sorry for top posting, Outlook style...

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Ole Troan — 2013-05-10T16:04:50

Max,


6to4 is an NBMA / mesh link.


same with BGP tunnels, using 6to4 next-hops. or ISATAP, or automatic tunnels...

cheers,
Ole

Re: http://www.6assist.net/ - call for test

Jeroen Massar — 2013-05-10T15:14:36

Really...tunneled connectivity without link monitoring (can't with
tunnels), latency/throughput checks or quality checks using a route server?

As Randy would say: I suggest everybody else to use that!

Please though do not do this, it will just make IPv6 SUCK for everybody
using that.

For the few ISPs who are in a remote location who cannot get native
IPv6, let these people connect to their CLOSEST native connectivity point.

I'll repeat again: if you know of ISPs who want IPv6, but cannot get it,
let them send an email here. I am sure that various real transit
providers will make them offers they cannot refuse.


A setup like you propose with 6assist is fun for people who want to
LEARN how BGP works, but for real connectivity, please just do not do it.

Greets,
 Jeroen