RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

The end > sites are demanding autonomy with a stable routing system. That set of > requirements leads to structured allocations and topology constraints. ...it should be noted that the ones holding the money are the end sites. Which makes a case for concentrating the effort on a stable routing ser

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 19:49 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 15-apr-2006, at 18:54, Christian Huitema wrote: [..] > It's really too bad, because we almost have what we need to pull this > whole scalability thing off in IPv6: stateless autoconfig, DHCPv6 > prefix delegation, dynamic DNS u

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On 15-apr-2006, at 18:54, Christian Huitema wrote: Clearly, the current set-up based on BGP and "default-free" tables is not set to absorb more than a small number of PI prefixes -- maybe a few thousands, maybe a few tens of thousands, certainly not a few hundred of millions. But who says t

Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues

Spencer Dawkins wrote: > If "public transcriptions" means IESG telechat narrative > minutes (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.html) Yes, that's what I meant. I looked into this because I was interested in some then pending appeals (3066bis + SenderID). > I can remember three times when I

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

> > portability could be one outcome. > > Given that the point of this PI exercise seems to be to increase the > viability of IPv6, maybe you should go for it, and add number portability > too? That should further increase the viability. The IETF is an engineering organization. Engineers are

Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues

I'm confused on a minor point... The IESG is working like the Holy See, that's no new invention. At least it's mostly transparent (thanks to the tracker). The experiment with public transcriptions was less useful, critical topics were blanked out, the rest only reflected what's already visible

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

> From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > portability could be one outcome. Given that the point of this PI exercise seems to be to increase the viability of IPv6, maybe you should go for it, and add number portability too? That should further increase the viability. > it is manageab

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

Hello; On Apr 14, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Scott Bradner wrote: Michel sed breaking news The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed policy proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignmen

Re: Unannounced list status changes considered harmful

Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Please provide more data (off-list) as this seems odd. Will do (ordinary moderation bounce), but on list I should fix the bogus URLs I've posted here (I forgot one "gmane", sorry): http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tools (NNTP, RSS, HTTP, search) http://dir.gmane.org/gman

Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues

John C Klensin wrote: > generally, what those types of proposal need, independent > of the process-change model we use, is enough community > discussion to permit making a determination that people care > and that there is sufficient consensus to move forward. FWIW, I read these drafts up to the

Re: Syslog inquiry, what is TAG delimiter with regard to RFC 3164

Johan Bosaeus wrote: > What is the general understanding of this issue? AFAIK there's a WG trying to clean up this mess, or maybe blow it up, I'm not sure. My understanding is to use a colon, for an example see (REXX). Bye, Frank

Re: Unannounced list status changes considered harmful

Hi Frank, on 2006-04-15 13:44 Frank Ellermann said the following: >> shows >> that all was fine until Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:59:56 -0700. > > Update: > Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:00:00 +0200 - no "me

Unannounced list status changes considered harmful (was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)

> shows > that all was fine until Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:59:56 -0700. Update: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:00:00 +0200 - no "megatron" / "odin" issue. The "tools" list also changed its status from "unm

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

> Total of 66 messages in the last 7 days through midnight, > Thursday, April 13 EST. Sometimes this weekly "alive" message isn't good enough, at the moment I'm trying to debug an issue between GMaNe and the tools list. So far I only know that it's not between me and GMaNe, and not on GMaNe itsel