> From: "David R. Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers ...
> Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6.
Oh, I can't resist:
It's completely appalling that when I move to a new house, my street address
ch
Dave,
> Technogeeks, perhaps. The vast majority of people on the Internet who are
> behind NATs most likely don't even know it.
With all the discussion of Napster and so-called "peer to peer" networking,
I think NATs are going to become far more visible to users as these
applications grow in po
> > > IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no,
> > > not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until
> > > that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6.
> >
> >I don't think so - first, because IPv6 has more hooks for renumbe
Keith,
At 10:02 PM 2/14/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no,
> > not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until
> > that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6.
>
>I don't think so -
> IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no,
> not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until
> that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6.
I don't think so - first, because IPv6 has more hooks for renumbering
than v4 (thou
At 05:53 PM 2/14/2001 -0800, Michael W. Condry wrote:
>I assume with IPv6 there is no need for NATs.
IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no,
not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until
that issue is addressed, there will be NATs.
to correct something I just miswrote:
> - if you define it as the ability to "plug and ping" small networks
> into the Internet, then (as far as I can tell) we still need
> a small piece of protocol beyond IPv6 to have a "pure IPv6"
> plug-and-ping solution. in the interim, either PPP or D
> Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix
> the NAT problem - true or not true?
depends on how you define "the NAT problem"
- if you define it as a shortage of addresses, then IPv6 *does*
solve the NAT problem - provided, of course, that the RIRs
are willing to assign reas
Hello:
Well, the current DNS was designed around 1983 by
Mockapetris et. al. ( See also http://gnIETF.vlsm.org/127.txt ).
AFAIK, it was based on assumptions like a "single root"/
"single person authority", a simple categorizing scheme (.edu,
.gov, ...), etc. Unfortunately, nowadays, XYZZY lawye
Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix
the NAT problem - true or not true? I assume
with IPv6 there is no need for NATs. Who thinks
they will still be around - humm maybe if the ISP charge
a fortune for 4 IP addresses vs 1 IP address (IPv6 or IPv4).
At 11:53 AM 2/2/2001 -0800,
This note is to announce a new IETF email reflector to discuss methods for
running IP traffic over an InfiniBand fabric. A BOF on this subject
has been proposed for the March IETF meeting.
To join the reflector, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"Subscribe ipoverib" in the body of the message
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:25:26 +1100, Dassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would consider such results the fault of the list maintainer and not
> a fault in the email system. Much like physical addresses used within
> the postal system, anyone maintaining a list needs to provide a means
> to maint
If you are interested in middleboxes in general and a draft taxonomy
of 20 different types of middlebox...
See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-midtax-00.txt
Plan on attending the midtax BOF in Minneapolis.
Ad hoc mailing list thanks to Rob Austein:
Post: [EMAIL PR
of course if NAT is so cool,
why not make _every_ hop do NAT (Naughty Awful Terrible stuff)
instead of MPLS (My Protocol's a Lot Slower)
as a way of aggregate traffic engineering without recourse to
level 2 (which we all know is making a lot less money than level 3
right now)
i mean they a
|>-Original Message-
|>From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:41 AM
|>To: Mike O'Dell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>Subject: Relation email - person (re: Mail sent to midcom)
|>
|>I recently had the dubious pleasure of sending out 40.000
|>emails
At 17:18 13/02/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>I also wonder about Harald's sample - might this particular group of
>people be more likely to
>
>- understand the value of a stable email address
>- pick a ISP that provides good service and has good potential for longevity
>- have his/her own person
>> So transport layer should somehow enhance
>>the error check and/or correction mechanism.
>
> actually, I would put it in the application layer. I would have the
> application include some form of checksum (PGP signature, file CRC,
> whatever) to ensure for itself that what was sent was wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
