I'm not particularly interested in getting into a Yes it is!
No it isn't! debate. I will merely point out that IPv6 has
been implemented and is being deployed as IPv4 with more
bits.
If more people would get involved in developing a best practices
document for IPv6, perhaps through a
I wonder if even
writing a BCP about this even makes sense at this point,
because the application writers (or authors of the references
the application writers use) may never see the draft, or even
be concerned that it's something they should check for.
I think that it does make sense
On 14-sep-2007, at 22:34, Greg Skinner wrote:
When routing connectivity could be restored quickly, the maintained
state
at both ends of the TCP connection would allow the application to
proceed normally. However, this practice doesn't seem to have made it
into the application-writing
John C Klensin wrote:
Ned Freed wrote:
[...]
To the extent RFC 1345 is problematic, it is because its domain
of applicability is quite limited. But within that narrow
domain it actually can perform a useful function.
Agreed. And perhaps that suggests a way forward if people are
willing
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:21PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Roger,
On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this,
which
i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
and inaccurately failed to remove
Lixia,
I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my
understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived
difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see,
does not exist.
Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by
