Hi,
>
>> I'm not thinking of today but the future. And yes, another
>> argument would be that there isn't enough address space for this to be
>> effectively private. Those are two different issues, but fixing the
>> boundary here reminds me of mistakes we made with IPv4 way back when.
Just remember kids,
disagreeing is not attacking. accusing them of attacking when all
they're doing is disagreeing is an attack on them.
don't assume people have no real world experience or responsibilities if
they choose not to announce to the world their job title or their
affiliations in their
ause on a
IPv4 CGN. His arguments to make 6to4 historic are not based on issues
specific to 6to4. If 6to4 is made historic, does he then start lobbying
for UDP-historic?
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:02:02 -0700
> > Cameron Byrne w
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:02:02 -0700
Cameron Byrne wrote:
> In the meantime, i null route the 6to4 anycast address because it
> creates half open state in my CGN. Been doing that for at least 5
> years.
So, to be clear, you're not making an observation that 6to4 is broken,
based on measurement o
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:44:24 -0700
Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/02/2011 18:50, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6
> > deployment?
>
> It's been discussed ad nauseum in numerous fora.
Discussion isn't evidence, as peo
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:10:03 +0900
Erik Kline wrote:
> All,
>
> > Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
> > better chance of consensus.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
> implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?
>
> This (http
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:21:36 -0700
Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> >>
> >> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS
> WG and IETF consensus
> >>
> >> If anyone
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:54:50 +0200
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>
> > - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG
> > and IETF consensus
> >
> > If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
> >
Hi Gert,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:51:26 +0200
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:15:17PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> > I have a vested interest in anycast 6to4 continuing to exist,
>
> This actually brings up a good argument:
>
> are you goi
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:43:23 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > ... about 80% of the time.
> >
> > Or 99.999% of the time once you get it setup. The problem isn't 6to4, it's
> > *automatic* 6to4.
> >
>
> No, because you often end up bei
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:33 -0700
Erik Kline wrote:
> The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
> hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
> networks won't get s.
>
> This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact policy
> for bla
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:59:47 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt wrote:
> >
> > Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
> > behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own 6to4
> > return-path relay
Hi,
I've been aware of this draft for a while, and have begrudgingly felt
that if any form of address translation is going to occur in IPv6 then
the method described in this I-D was a good way to do it, as it avoids
many of the drawbacks of many of the IPv4 NAT and NAPT methods.
One area where I
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:52:36 +0200
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As IETF Sergeant-at-arms, I will suggest that this topic is specific to 6MAN
> and should be further discussed there.
>
Books worked for me, but then again, I'm willing to spend my own money
on keeping my knowle
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:03:46 +0100
"Christian de Larrinaga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A traveller cannot change ISP easily so either will just have to accept some
> things cannot be done or will find a way. As it happens one can preplan and
> setup a proxy service or a tunnel broker etc that
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Ole Jacobsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If by "IPSec" you mean what the marketing folks call VPN, then so far it
> has worked just fine.
>
> Muticast, VOIP and the rest of stuff you mention probably does NOT work,
> but my point was that this is NOT what
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:40:03 -0400
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ohta-san,
>
> I do not expect that we will agree on this, and may need to
> simply agree to disagree, but, having just reviewed the draft
> you included in your slightly earlier not, let me try to explain
> the other p
Hi Hadmut,
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:42:23 +0200
Hadmut Danisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at least here in Germany Internet providers tend to
> do and not to do what they want.
>
> - Some cut off their clients every 24 hours (DSL)
>
> - Some block or slowdown particular tcp ports
>
On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:20:49 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Mark Smith
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Yes, spam filtering can be quite effective.
> >
> > Not using spam filtering ... I don't like the ch
On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:16:42 -0400
"Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This would be a very interesting philosophical argument if in
> > fact what we were discussing was something that could take a
> > significant bite out of spam
On Sun, 30 May 2004 11:04:32 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Mark Smith
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > people to monitor and deal with their abusive customers.
> > > That is why many of the providers of those $30/mon
On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:45:41 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> As Mr. Borenstein knows, a substantial fraction and probably
> most spam is current sent using $30/month consumer accounts.
> The spam that is not sent us
On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:42:01 -0400 (EDT)
Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
Firstly, let me say that it is really sad that legalease, legal
council and legal positions have appeared on an IETF mailing
list to the extent we've seen.
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:44:16 +0900
Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith;
>
> > I'm keen to
> > find out if my understanding of PMTUD purpose and operation
> > is incorrect.
>
> Read the RFC or my quotation of it.
>
Ok, well
On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:48:57 +0900
Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith;
>
> >>>A number of commercial
> >>>products and applications do rely on PMTU to work, and will
> >>>do an PATH MTU discovery, and send the MTU sized pac
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:55:43 +0900
Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dean Anderson;
>
> > A number of commercial
> > products and applications do rely on PMTU to work, and will
> > do an PATH MTU discovery, and send the MTU sized packets with
> > DF (don't frag).
>
> and send packets l
On Sun, 09 May 2004 06:43:46 +0900
Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith;
>
> > > Filtering on protocol/port numbers is a broken concept.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> However, it is merely as broken as PMTUD that we don't need
> security discuss
On Sat, 8 May 2004 10:42:30 +0930
Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 23:03:02 +0200
>
> An "IPsec" only Internet would provide a disincentive to DoS,
> as
Should be "IPsec only" Internet.
__
On Fri, 7 May 2004 23:03:02 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7-mei-04, at 21:51, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> > The old assumption used to be that if a host has an IP
> > address, it can receive pretty much any packet sent to that
> > address. The practical situation we
Hi John, Harald,
On Mon, 3 May 2004 08:53:03 -0400
John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-al
Hi Harald,
On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:50:07 -0700
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have tried to incorporate the extremely useful feedback I got
> on this list and from the Korea plenary.
>
> I hope this is ready to send to IETF-wide Last Call.
> This is your chance to get at i
Hi Iljitsch,
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:19:49 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering if there are any plans to change the status of
> the class E address space (240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255).
>
> Currently, there are approximately 221 usable /8s: classes A
> (125), B
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:17:55 -0800
"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > These protocols require that at least one
> > side in each transfer is capable of
> > receiving inbound sessions.
>
> This is not true. Kaaza does not require to open any ports nor
> conf
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:50:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Kolis) wrote:
> >This really doesn't say much about the scalability of the
> >solution. What it indicates is how much effort people are
> >willing to go to to commit what is perceived as victimless
> >crime.
>
> Two things.
> First, here i
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > >>> The residential users don't need to have a globaly unique
> > >IP address.>
> > >> That's like saying residential telephone users don't need
> > >to have a> phone
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:29:02 -0800
Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting reading: some have been asking what the cost of
> moving from a peer-to-peer to a service/consumer model are, in
> terms of applications deployed and the ability to build more
> robust business models. Many ISPs
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:28:46 -0500
"Peter Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi...
>
>
>
> Congratulations on your perspicacity. I too was suspicious of
> this VISA email and immediately went phishing on Google until I
> saw your email. There must be thousands who were taken in by
> this desp
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500
>
> In such context, a more participative behaviour should be
> welcome. Elits should help and educate rather than keeping the
> steering so firmly. RFC aren't they meaning "Request For
> Comments" ? Why did I never find the button "add your comment",
> yet, on a
Just received this Phish email.
What is amazing about it is that, while it looks like a plain ascii email, it was
actually in HTML, and HTML had been used to make it look like an plain ascii email.
I don't remember giving Visa any of my "nosense.org" email addresses, so I was
suspicious. Clicki
I've heard of one recently where the actual page was from the legitimate bank web
site, but the dialog box window asking for username and password detail was the
spoofed component. Everythink, including HTTPS locks, URLs etc displayed would have
looked, and actually were legitimate.
On Sun, 2
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:33:43 -0500 (EST)
shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > People need to rely on their common sense. This isn't a technical
> > problem. It is a social engineering problem. Your best bet is to read
> > Kevin Mitnick's book "The
There are more scary stories at
http://stupidsecurity.com
Some people think publishing stories like these are wrong ... in security, it is far
better to learn from other people's mistakes than your own.
btw, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] won't receive this ... they are rejecting
my
And don't trust emails asking for sensitive information. Verify their requests
independantly via the phone, for example, and just _don't_ use a phone number that is
supplied in the email.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:26:05 -0500 (EST)
shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> perhaps the solution is to no
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address
ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX records.
I can't get matching PTR records.
I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't have matching PTR and MX records.
Why should
I just match on either the
"Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
header, or the ML specific email address I've created.
I'm using Sylpheed though, it seems to be more flexible on matching header fields than
most other email clients I've used in the past.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:13 -0500
Gordon Cook <
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:19:15 +0100
"Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith writes:
>
> > So what purpose do RFCs serve if they aren't specific enough to be
> > complied with ?
>
> They can easily be complied with and yet sti
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:37:23 +0100
"Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Linux could at least stand on the claim that it was implementing
> > the RFCs as written, and that the interoperability problem was
> > due to the other end failing to implement
> If I have a system that does everything I require, I don't need
> improvements.
So your currently requirements are exactly the same as all the other users of the
Internet ? I find it hard to believe that your requirements are exactly the same as
mine, and I'm only one of the other approxima
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:19:49 +0100
"Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Kristoff writes:
>
> > Those are pretty bold statements.
>
> Well, when something pops up in software I use that adds functionality
> that I never wanted and breaks things that used to work, bold statemen
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:55:41 -0500
"Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:10:44PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> > The dumb authors, I think, are those who built Linux implementations
> > that doggedly attempt to negotiate ECN and are unprepared for cases
> >
50 matches
Mail list logo
