Hey!
New message, please read <http://inhouse.onnet.edu.vn/sleep.php?297>
Durand Alain
Who said the water at the bottom of the barrel of IPv4 addresses will be
very pure? We ARE running out and the global pain is increasing.
- Alain.
On 1/21/10 6:47 PM, "Bulger, Tim" wrote:
> Having 1/8 allocated cannot be a blessing... There must be thousands of
> underskilled in the wild wit
On 1/17/10 1:01 PM, "Leo Bicknell" wrote:
But, i am legitimately interested in perceived
>> service gaps or issues, given this tightly controlled service
>> definition (web and email).
>
> I think the phones stopped being "tightly controlled" with the
> iPhone and Android phones. They expec
On 1/17/10 11:59 AM, "Cameron Byrne" wrote:
> It's unfortunate for me that nobody is interested in talking about the
> question I asked in light of the data i supplied. The question being,
> is it possible for a mobile operator to offer an IPv6-only service
> today to casual Internet users on ne
On 1/16/10 10:52 AM, "Cam Byrne" wrote:
>
>A dual-stack capable host like windows 7 does not ensure any ipv6 network
access beyond the local LAN, especially given todays ipv4-only >service
dominance. There are various ways to translate or tunnel to solve this problem,
connecting v6 and v4 islands
On 1/16/10 8:03 AM, "Jim Burwell" wrote:
> Could well be the case. My idea was that you could do it either way.
> You could have a DS-Lite gateway (Typical. Likely built into the "cable
> modem" or similar device), or in the case where no gateway is available,
> a DS-Lite "client" (basically a
[resending with more readable, apologies for the duplicate]
DS-lite can work both for fixed and wireless scenario, where you have a
laptop/pda/smarphone/tablet
that is only configured by the access network with IPv6 but want to access
IPv4 content FROM IPv4
applications. This is the main differenc
>
> I have looked at DS-lite very carefully. First, DS-Lite fits better
> for cable operators since they have CPE and can have a DS-lite
> function in the CPE that they control, and that in turn allows them to
> provide IPv4, IPv6, and dual-stack to the end-host that they do not
> control. DS
On 12/2/09 7:24 PM, "Brandon Galbraith" wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Dodd wrote:
>
>> > I meant to say 6to4, sorry about that. Nothing special there.
>> >
>> > -Matt
>> >
>> >
> 4to6 would be a mighty nice feature on a CPE =)
===> If you are thinking about only giving a v6
On 11/23/09 7:25 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> how to prevent new instances, both asn and ip?
>
The whole value of the RIR is to guarantee this uniqueness. This problem
should not have happened.
The fact that it has is troublesome. I¹ll make a guess that this is a result
of a clerical error somew
I would suggest to read RFC3901/BCP91: ³DNS IPv6 Transport Operational
Guidelines² on this topic.
- Alain.
On 6/21/09 5:45 PM, "joel jaeggli" wrote:
> In pratice, most clients are not their own recursive resolvers.
>
> Rui Ribeiro wrote:
>
>> >Hi Steve,
>> >
>> >An IPv6 only device can "
On 5/5/09 4:38 PM, "David W. Hankins" wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:22:04PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote:
>> Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out an
>> RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the sophisticated
>> users who want routed beha
12 matches
Mail list logo
