On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
LIR's may assign blocks in the range of /48 to /64 to end sites.
All assignments made by LIR's should meet a minimum HD-Ratio of .25.
* /64 - Site needing only a single subnet.
* /60 - Site with 2-3 subnets initially.
* /56 - Site with 4-7
On 20-aug-2007, at 9:57, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I would say this entire problem is related to the fact that a /48 is a
huge amount of IP addresses and most people have a hard time to
understand why everyone, even end-users (your grandmother or any other
non-technical users) should get this
I know the reasons behind the /48 etc but it just going to
cause us trouble to keep it like that, we should divide the
/48 cateogry of users into two:
- people that can get the current /48 as long as they have
more than ONE subnet
- people that only have ONE subnet, typical home-users
On 8/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know the reasons behind the /48 etc but it just going to
cause us trouble to keep it like that, we should divide the
/48 cateogry of users into two:
- people that can get the current /48 as long as they have
more than ONE subnet
Hi,
On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:06 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS wrote:
Much thanks Elwyn -
JP - I scanned quickly and they seem to be fair comments - very
helpful
as another perspective. The fixes look to be largely descriptive
clarifications and editorial. Can you handle the updates on this
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
I am quite startled by this thread, both in its emotion
and in the apparent oversight of multiple approaches
to the issue of having LOTS of connected user devices
at a house/site/office when an IPv6 /64 prefix has been
provided by one's upstream network provider.
First, giving each end user a
--On Sunday, 19 August, 2007 11:48 -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 17 August, 2007 16:18 -0700 SM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There are ways to validate the sender the first time you
establish a contact. Once that is done, you can use it
John C Klensin wrote:
If was precisely SPF and Sender-ID, and some similar approaches, to which I
was referring.And I agree with the skepticism and, based on my personal
biases, could have said something a lot stronger that appear to be: I
was trying to be as neutral
(every now and
The IAOC is accepting private comments through September 4th regarding
the qualifications of the companies bidding to provide services under
the IETF Secretariat Services RFP. ( iaoc.ietf.org/rfpsrfis.html )
The RFP sought bids to provide the following services:
1. Meeting
2. Clerical
Hi, Eric, responding as an individual.
Obviously, I disagree with your basic claim that it is too early to
write a document like this. I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a
consensus call on whether we have sufficient support to be making this
sort of statement. If not, then I'll be happy to
On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be an
Informational RFC coming through the IETF process:
At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a
consensus call on whether we have sufficient support to be making this
sort of statement. If
Paul Hoffman wrote:
On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be an
Informational RFC coming through the IETF process:
At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a
consensus call on whether we have sufficient support to be making this
caveat: i have not checked the entire thread yet, so it could be a
duplicate of someone's words.
First, giving each end user a /64 means that the user can
have up to 2^^64 devices at their site/home/office. That
2^64 interface ID is picked to reduce the possibility (or
Paul == Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be
Paul an Informational RFC coming through the IETF process:
Paul At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a consensus call on
On 18-aug-2007, at 16:27, RJ Atkinson wrote:
Second, Ethernet bridging is a well understood technology
and it works just fine even with very large numbers of devices.
That's a meaningless statement. Yes, it works well if you work around
the limitations. If you create a loop in a bridged
Mark Andrews writes:
Cable companies need this amount of address space for
controlling the CPE boxes. The customers still get public
addresses. That's a minimum of two addresses per customer.
One of which can easily be an IPv6 address, so allocating 240/x for this
At 08:06 20-08-2007, John C Klensin wrote:
I was trying to suggest --obviously in too subtle a way-- that
the supposedly easy-to-deploy transport-based systems often
don't work well if there is more than one hop. If that is
equivalent to what you say above, then so be it: the apparent
silliness
I'd like to talk to Bell. Designer of the Assassination Politics
protocol. Anyone know if he's out of jail yet?
thanks
joe baptista
--
Joe Baptistawww.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
The
I have a slightly different take from John here.
My strong belief is that a proposal for a new protocol that does the same thing
as SMTP but slightly better is a total non starter. No matter how much better
the protocol is the cost of transition will dominate.
The only way that I see a new
I am pretty sure the EUI-64 requirement has been dropped. If not I can't see
how the real world security practitioners are going to implement it.
The EUI-64 address reveals the hardware manufacturer and model of hardware that
I am using. There are no circumstances in which I am going to allow
Why do I need more bits to support more subnets?
Since my IPv6 addresses are going to be assigned via DHCP and since I have not
the slightest intention of using the MAC address as the low order bits that
appear on the Internet proper, I don't see why I would be requiring more than
2^32 devices
I do not believe that it is difficult to design fire and forget systems for the
home. The problem is not design, it's the politics.
Apple has gone a long way towards doing just that, and they have brought a lot
of manufacturers with them. They have approached the problem with a more
feasible
My appologies for not replying earlier.
Yes, Fred, you are entirely correct here and this was the original point that I
raised in the plenary. David Clark is not the sort of person to propose a
dogma. As you point out the original paper is couched in terms of 'here are
some issues you might
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I have a slightly different take from John here.
My strong belief is that a proposal for a new protocol that does the same thing
as SMTP but slightly better is a total non starter. No matter how much better
the protocol is the cost of transition will dominate.
--On Monday, 20 August, 2007 15:16 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a slightly different take from John here.
My strong belief is that a proposal for a new protocol that
does the same thing as SMTP but slightly better is a total non
starter. No matter how much
The slightly different spin that I started from but did not manage to quite get
to come out in the message was that I don't think that the successor to email
will be designed as the successor to email.
I think that it will be an infrastructure that is designed to do something
different and
John C Klensin wrote:
The only way that I see a new email infrastructure emerging is
as a part of a more general infrastructure to support
multi-modal communication, both synchronous and asynchronous,
bilateral and multilateral, Instant Messaging, email, voice,
video, network news all combined
Dear folk,
For the past two years I've been casually searching for an XML format for
describing computer files that I could use for creating catalogs of files
for backup purposes.
Such a format seems to me to be a very important tool for making,
duplicating and sharing vendor-independent file
Mark Andrews writes:
Cable companies need this amount of address space for
controlling the CPE boxes. The customers still get public
addresses. That's a minimum of two addresses per customer.
One of which can easily be an IPv6 address, so allocating 240/x for
On Aug 20, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Which is what prompted the original point I made in the plenary:
when someone is using the end to end principle to slap down some
engineering proposal they don't like I would at least like them to
appear to have read the paper they
Fred Baker wrote:
The funny thing is that I'm not convinced that this is a change.
As I have said in this and other fora, there is an argument for
functional complexity in the network, and routing is its poster child.
...
What we need to do is figure out how to let the intelligent network
Anyone who thinks that a new mail protocol that relies on users seeing
some secure or trustworthy indicator should read:
An Evaluation of Extended Validation and Picture-in-Picture Phishing
Attacks
Collin Jackson, Daniel R. Simon, Desney S. Tan, and Adam Barth, Proc.
USEC '07.
What we need to do is figure out how to let the intelligent network
core work cooperatively with the intelligent edge to let it do
intelligent things. Right now, the core and the edge are ships in
the night, passing and occasionally bumping into each other. No, we
don't want unnecessary
At Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:09:09 -0400,
Sam Hartman wrote:
Paul == Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be
Paul an Informational RFC coming through the IETF process:
Paul At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman
Michael Thomas wrote:
The only way that I see a new email infrastructure emerging is as a
part of a more general infrastructure to support multi-modal
communication, both synchronous and asynchronous, bilateral and
multilateral, Instant Messaging, email, voice, video, network news all
36 matches
Mail list logo
