What are you afraid people will find out ? Has the IETF decided to use A6 or AAAA ?
With 2002:[IPv4]:0000 used to keep people connected to the IPv4 Internet, how can the 3FFE experimental people claim to be connected ? Can all of the current IPv4 users access the 3FFE network ? This may help... http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/ The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4 http://netfilter.samba.org Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info IPv16....One Better !! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:13 PM Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.? > Jim, > > You have been asked to stop posting nonsense like this to the list. > Since you clearly choose to impede rather than help progress the work of > the group we have no choice but to blocked your ability to post. This > initial block will last for 2 months. Hopefully you will change your > attitude by then. > > Tony > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Fleming > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:11 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.? > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H (B > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)> > > To: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:31 PM > > Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Re: reverse delegation under ip6.arpa.? > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:31:39 -0800, > > > >>>>> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > > > agreed. but the pain is minimal. note that, initially, > > the content of > > > > ip6.arpa is directly that of ip6.int. in fact, one could > > have the same > > > > zone file pointed to by both names. the big pain in the > > transition is > > > > that of the registries, whois, etc. and they've been > > working on this > > > > for some months. > > > > > > As for the registry side transition, I have another question. I saw > > > delegations for 2001:0200::/24 to APNIC. What is the current status > > > about 3ffe::/16? Is there a plan to delegate ip6.arpa. sub domains > > > for that block? > > > > > > JINMEI, Tatuya > > > Communication Platform Lab. > > > Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------- > > > > Others have stated that 3FFE users are on some sort of > > "experimental network". > > They are not connected to the real Internet, which has its > > foundation in IPv4. > > With the new AAAA records in the DNS, there is no room for the 3FFE, > > because of the 2002:[IPv4]:0000 values. Apparently, the 3FFE > > users use A6 > > DNS records, which are not recommended because of a variety > > of reasons. > > The IETF recently came to this conclusion. It is unclear why > > it took so long. > > Maybe stability and security are now more serious concerns ? > > > > Compare that to 2002:[IPv4]:0000 users, who are using IPv4 in > > the extended > > proxy mode, whereby the IPv4 header is augmented with extra > > information to > > route the packets to a larger address space. The 2002 users > > can of course use > > the IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones to record their address allocations. > > Many companies, > > including ICANN, are working on expanding the TLD variety. > > This will help > > to create the equivalent of thousands of Address Registries, > > where there are > > currently 3 dominant ones, and several private registries > > operated by the companies > > that got in early on the IPv4 address allocations. > > > > It all boils down to fairness. > > Which list do you think is more fair ? > > The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ? > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > or > > The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ? > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > > > > > > > Jim Fleming > > http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/ > > http://www.IPv8.info > > IPv16....One Better !! > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------