This is discussed in some detail in the "zero-conf" IDs; I don't know
that any are RFCs yet.
The intent is to mimic the "stateless autoconfiguration" in IPv6 in an
IPv4 world.
Regards,
Justin
On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 11:44 , Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> Sorry to barge in with a techn
It was refreshing that at the last NANOG in Oakland, IPv6 just worked.
Cisco did a great job.
%
%
% [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
% > Hello. are there plans to deploy IPv6 into the terminal cluster
% > network at IETF52 (salt lake city)? if not, I would like to help out
% > and c
%
% Sorry to barge in with a technical, standards-related question. It
% seems that there is a common practice that when a host asks for an
% IPv4 address, such as through DHCP, but the host isn't attached to
% the network, that the software gives it an address of 169.254.x.y. Is
% this documente
Gentle People:
Pleeease stop this thread.
I am under the impression that this reflector was intended
for the discussion of the standardization of Internet Protocols.
Please limit its use to this topic only.
Thomas Dineen
- Original Message -
From: "RJ Auburn" <[EMAIL PR
RJ Auburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
> > Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > > I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all
> > > opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out
> > > of luck, eh?
> >
> > Not at all. Let Jim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hello. are there plans to deploy IPv6 into the terminal cluster
> network at IETF52 (salt lake city)? if not, I would like to help out
> and configure it. who will be hosting this time?
By the way, I'd like to note that IPv6 service at our meeting
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:44:12AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> Sorry to barge in with a technical, standards-related question. It
> seems that there is a common practice that when a host asks for an
> IPv4 address, such as through DHCP, but the host isn't attached to
> the network, that th
I would like to know more about the decision process involving
censorship on the IETF list.
About October 5th I sent a reply to a message from "Cel"
http://ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg13899.html
which specifically asked for any ideas to stop the solicitation
from the "DEPARTMENT OF PE
Sorry to barge in with a technical, standards-related question. It
seems that there is a common practice that when a host asks for an
IPv4 address, such as through DHCP, but the host isn't attached to
the network, that the software gives it an address of 169.254.x.y. Is
this documented in any RFC?
my goodness of the 150msgs in my *filtered* ietf inbox 130 are off-topic. Isnt
there some way around all of this?
Also, a question Is there a digest version of this list?
Thanks and again I am sorry for adding to the off-topic postings...
-- Original Message ---
10 matches
Mail list logo
