Subject: Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call:
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request) Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at
12:19:49AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org):
>
> In message <20111206055756.gd20...@besserwisser.org>, =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?=
> Nils
> son writes:
> > Subject: Re: "class
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 06:52:41AM -0800, the IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Use of SHA-256 Algorithm with RSA, DSA and ECDSA in SSHFP Resource
>Records'
>as a Proposed Standard
In section 5, the TOC is
Hi, Ron.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
> draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat.
I support the assignment of an IPv4 /10 for shared CGN space. Most of my
thoughts on this topi
On 03/12/2011, at 10:41 PM, t.petch wrote:
> Rather, I would insert
> 'reserved and unreserved are formally defined in section 1.5 using the same
> definitions as appear in [RFC3986]'
> after the first paragraph of 1.2.
In SVN.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_
On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:58 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> this is a much stronger argument for a "dear customer, either renumber or
>> upgrade your
>> hardware" position
>
> I'd imagine the vast majority of the customers of ISPs who are facing this
The IESG has received a second willing nominee for the IAOC position. Tobias
Gondrom would like to serve the community as an IAOC member. Please send
comments on Tobias to i...@ietf.org.
Additional nominations are welcome until 7 December 2011.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley
IESG C
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Doug Barton
>
> Thank you for confirming publicly that the issue here is not a
> technical
> one, but rather that the ISPs would prefer not to bear the costs of
> dealing with the problem that t
On 12/5/11 7:47 PM, "Doug Barton" wrote:
>On 12/04/2011 19:10, Chris Donley wrote:
>>
>> More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions
>> is that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice
>> because the 10 part involves customer service work that those
>>
In message <4ede4884.1030...@cisco.com>, Eliot Lear writes:
> Mark,
>
> On 12/5/11 10:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It's not that the CPE's can't renumber. The ISP are already using RFC
> > 1918, in good faith, internally to talk to the management interfaces
> > of modems so using RFC 1918 is fo
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Renumbering the internal network would be completely silly.
> > You certainly do not want any interruptions of the local network traffic
> > just because you frequently change the address on the external interface for
> > privacy reasons.
>
> This is why ULAs are us
Brian, I'd like to join this from another angle.
What exactly does changing your v4 address get you in terms of privacy?
It's my understanding that protocols including TCP, HTTP, TLS, and very
much the web platform are fairly easily linked.
That is, it's relatively easy to determine with reasonab
Martin,
> Renumbering the internal network would be completely silly.
> You certainly do not want any interruptions of the local network traffic
> just because you frequently change the address on the external interface for
> privacy reasons.
This is why ULAs are useful. People just need to get u
On 2011-12-06 18:14, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
>>> The so-called "IPv6 privacy addresses" are terminology fud.
>> No, there is no fear, uncertainty or doubt involved. If you don't want
>> to be traceable by your MAC address, use privacy addresses. That will
>> even conceal from parents which child is
On 12/05/2011 18:11, Greg Daley wrote:
> The assumption that information is present only within the IP address is
> erroneous.
> This has been studied for mobile IPv6 users as well, and there is information
> leakage up and down the stack.
>
> We have local source address selection mechanisms in
Mark,
On 12/5/11 10:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's not that the CPE's can't renumber. The ISP are already using RFC
> 1918, in good faith, internally to talk to the management interfaces
> of modems so using RFC 1918 is forcing the ISP's to renumber out of
> whichever RFC 1918 block that is cho
Dear Martin,
> > I think you're confused. Whatever IPv6 source address is in the
> > outgoing packet from the CPE is bound 1:1 to the subscriber. You
> can't
> > conceal the address of the subscriber, if you ever want to get any
> packets back.
>
> The outgoing packet is bound 1:1 to the ISP of
Hi Martin,
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Rex [mailto:m...@sap.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2011 1:30 PM
> To: Greg Daley
> Cc: m...@sap.com; mail-dated-1325290081.a3a4e0@sabahattin-
> gucukoglu.com; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Netfilter (Linux) Does IPv6 NAT
>
> Greg Daley wro
Hi Martin,
The assumption that information is present only within the IP address is
erroneous.
This has been studied for mobile IPv6 users as well, and there is information
leakage up and down the stack.
We have local source address selection mechanisms in recent Windows versions
that use ra
Hi Mark,
> Adding a address range as non-public to existing equipment is a lot
> easier than adding IPv6 so that you can use DS-Lite. Much CPE
> equipment doesn't have the flash capacity to do the later. The former
> is trival provide the company that supplied the fireware is still in
> busines
Greg Daley wrote:
>
> I do not know if this is a current environment, or what you would like to see
> (A reference would be good).
That is the current environment for home DSL subscribers (IPv4) in Germany.
>
> One would use DHCPv6-PD to request the lease for a period,
> Router Advertise it dow
In message <20111206055756.gd20...@besserwisser.org>, =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nils
son writes:
> Subject: Re: "class E" (was: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-s=
> pace-request) Date: Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:38:56AM +1100 Quoting Mark Andr=
> ews (ma...@isc.org):
> =20
> > Ask everyone ev
21 matches
Mail list logo
