On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 14:49 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually
configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You
run DHCP within the home and it assigns such. That
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:17AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But this has also happened lately; not everybody is so short-sighted:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp
Since you cite Nokia, it's interesting that on the Communicator 9500 you
can run a regular voice
Hi All,
It will probably come as no surprise to many of you that I have spent
quite a bit of time over the last few years trying to understand why
people use NATs and how they could be replaced with more
architecturally harmonious mechanisms. I have been completely
convinced for several years
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
segments (wired, wireless, office or something) and maybe a max of 20
hosts. Changing the IP's of those hosts should not be a
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:44:07AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
will focus attention on the obvious
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
segments (wired, wireless, office or something) and maybe a max of 20
Margaret,
I agree completely with your analysis -- it turns out that the
two of us have been saying much the same thing for some time
now. But I suggest that the situation with one of your four
points is even a bit worse, IMO, than the way you describe it...
--On Tuesday, 23 November, 2004
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi All,
It will probably come as no surprise to many of you that I have spent
quite a bit of time over the last few years trying to understand why
people use NATs and how they could be replaced with more
architecturally
On 07:32 23/11/2004, some undisclosed @yahoo.com said:
your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing. You
managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should have just
wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ... I'm sure that
there's a lot of other
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:44:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:44:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
On 07:32 23/11/2004, some undisclosed @yahoo.com said:
your last email kinda reminded me of a bunch ofpoliticians arguing.
You managed to write hundreds of words and say nothing. You should
have just wrote (what he said) and saved us all a bunch of time. ...
I'm sure
shogunx wrote:
...
Ok. I'll bite. Who do you propose to tunnel to by default in all these
embedded devices? Do you give users a choice of tunnel brokers? Does it
work out of the box? Do you give them one address, or how large an
allocation, or what?
RFC 3056 /or
Richard Shockey wrote:
...
Yes deployment will be gated by economic factors. The problem the IETF
and
the transit network operator community keep overlooking is that the
economic
costs are not down in the plumbing. The costs are in application
development
and end system/lan
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:44:30 +0100, Jeroen Massar said:
Ack, nicely turn that NAT box into a real router by flashing it with a
This is unfortunately not something that most people dare to do. Then
again, I know that quite a lot of people 'upgraded' their SpeedTouch
Argh. Flashing it with a
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:46:23 +1200, Franck Martin said:
Well, in most Pacific Islands, there is only one operator who is nearly
fully owned by the government, so the words sole ISP and country can
be interchanged. The countries there are islands, physically and virtually.
troll mode=on
While
At 12:07 PM 11/21/2004, Peter Ford wrote:
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C4CFEC.A4503CD1
Noel,
You are sorely under-representing the IETF's
and your own efforts wrt NATs. I think of your
taxonomic study of NATs
At 06:00 PM 11/22/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 12:10 PM 11/22/04 -0800, Chris Palmer wrote:
There's another feature of NAT that is desirable that has not yet been
mentioned, and which at least some customers may be cognizant of: the
fact that NAT is a pretty restrictive firewall.
would that it were
Jefsey,
why don't you go yell at the IPv6 Forum - http://www.ipv6forum.org/?
It seems far more likely that you will get the IPv6 forum to be effective
by contributing than that you will get the IETF to change its ways by
long-winded messages on the IETF list.
Harald
--On 23.
Harald,
Thank you for your advice. As says the quote you kept, IPv6 is only part of
a global issue where the key point is organizing the numbering plan, what
IETF is not devised for, and ICANN does not consider. I am not interested
in stardizing but in making sure the IETF deliverables fit the
In reading section 3, I believe that there are some issues with respect
to separation between the IASA and IAD responsibilities.
My overall comment on Section 3 is that co-mingles sections relating to
the responsibilities of the IAD and the IAOC. Since the IAOC
constitutes the management, while
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 19:02 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 06:00 PM 11/22/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 12:10 PM 11/22/04 -0800, Chris Palmer wrote:
There's another feature of NAT that is desirable that has not yet been
mentioned, and which at least some customers may be cognizant of: the
fact
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BGP Communities for Data Collection '
draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-06.txt as a BCP
This document is the product of the Global Routing Operations Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are David Kessens and Bert Wijnen.
RFC Editor
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application '
draft-ietf-aaa-eap-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Authentication, Authorization and
Accounting Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Architecture Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access
Points(CAPWAP) '
draft-ietf-capwap-arch-06.txt as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Control And Provisioning of Wireless
Access Points Working
25 matches
Mail list logo
