Am 19.12.2007 um 21:56 schrieb Tony Hain:
Suggestions of WGs?
mipv4
mipshop
netconf (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4)
nea (should be agnostic, but clearly has the IPv4 mindset of a single
address/interface)
syslog (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4)
behav
I think the IPv4 outage experiment will be extremely useful.
An issue is that you can't do much in 30 or 60 minutes but the
pushback against taking IPv4 away for that long is already
significant, doing it for longer than that is probably not realistic.
Another approach:
We don't actually
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:21:04PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Rhetorical question.
>
> Does your vpn client policy file use dotted quads or a hostname?
>
> If you had access to a nat64 translator would your vpn client assuming
> it supports ipv6 cope?
Given that most VPN's generally work if th
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:01:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> The oldie perspective of 'take it or leave it' is not going to work
> here. I have gamed the dynamics of IPv4 exhaustion quite extensively
> and the mere fact that there are no more IPv4 addresses left to be
> allocated do
David Conrad wrote:
> IPv6 addresses will be available for root service via the
> normal mechanisms significantly before the next IETF.
Thanks for info (also to Bill for the RFC 3245 pointer,
one of the RFCs I had in mind when I mentioned "IAB" ;-)
Frank
___
> However, I would gently suggest that if people want IPv6 to
> be successful, we need to start using it, and we need to
> start creating the engineering solutions that allow IPv6 to
> be useful in the real-world.
Yes. And that includes figuring out what is needed to make an
IETF meeting funct
There is no special signaling to BEHAVE-compliant NATs.
Instead, the client behind the NAT sends a packet to some device on
the public side of the NAT, and this causes the NAT to create state.
This is the way all NATs work today.
Though there are not a lot of NATs today that are 100% BEHAVE
Ted,
There are many arguments going on. Very few people are actually that concerned
about the planned loss of connectivity. In fact I had an outage this morning as
the snow in new england brought my isp down for a while.
The problem is that this is not an experiment, it is a publicity event whe
We don't actually turn off IPv4, but just the DHCP servers. So
anyone who needs IPv4 can get an IPv4 address and configure it
manually.
This reminds me of RFC2322
--Olaf
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Iet
Tony Hain wrote:
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual
>> transition is going to look like. The only difference is that
>> I think we might just be able to work out a viable means of
>> punching holes so that video-conferencing works if we ac
At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:03 -0800,
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual
> > transition is going to look like. The only difference is that
> > I think we might just be able to work out a viable means of
> > punching hole
Thank you for your detailed comments.
I have produced an updated version of the document to address these and other
IETF last call comments:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/EMU/draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt
Some responses below:
- I assume that its correct to target this document at TLS 1.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
I think the IETF oldie perspective is ... amazement
Truer words were never spoken, at least from this oldie's
perspective. I found Dave Crocker's comment that the IETF never does
interoperabili
Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force? It seems by this
thread, many of us are afraid to do any engineering and just work on emails and
paper.
I don't know about others, but I always liked testing some new technology at
IETF meetings, but that seems less common these days
Hi Ray,
I had a chance to look at the schedule for the next meeting and I
observed that you took the feedback about normalizing the cutoff times
into account (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/71-cutoff_dates.html). I
appreciate your prompt action on this very much.
Happy holidays.
best,
Lakshm
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:20:54AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> Now, do you recall Randy Bush sitting in the IESG plenary and calling out
> passwords? Advising people to get some variation on a VPN running? For me,
> the big issue is that I do my work within a corporate context, and
> therefore ne
For a long time, there was a fair amount of multicast debugging and
deployment that was driven / accelerated / or took advantage of the
IETF meetings being multicast. (On that note I wish that there was
still at least some multicast video going out from the IETF, say of
the plenaries.) I al
Lucy Lynch wrote:
As an old multicast warrior and a long time NOC volunteer I'd point
out that we've been eating our own dog food for years. The world
didn't end and the network never melted completely ;-). All the fine
folks involved in *hard* technologies like DNSSEC, DKIM, mobility,
multi
IETF Chair wrote:
> How dark is the IPv6 Internet? Let's find out.
This thread prompted me to ask one of my hosting providers about IPv6
support. I received the following long but entertaining reply, which I
am forwarding on as anonymous feedback from the trenches.
**
I always said that if
> "john" == john loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
john> Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force?
john> It seems by this thread, many of us are afraid to do any
john> engineering and just work on emails and paper.
I *knew* there was some reason I didn't lik
Mike:
We are transitioning the ietf.org mail lists to a new Secretariat
next month. I'd like to table this idea until that transition is
complete, and then raise it again when the new servers are up,
running, and stable. Let's get what we have moved and working before
improvements are made.
And see if you can fix message readability, if I send a multi-part
signed e-mail (TEXT+HTML) with PGP
Like this one ;)
Russ Housley wrote:
> Mike:
>
> We are transitioning the ietf.org mail lists to a new Secretariat next
> month. I'd like to table this idea until that transition is complete,
>
Russ Housley wrote:
We are transitioning the ietf.org mail lists to a new Secretariat next
month. I'd like to table this idea until that transition is complete,
and then raise it again when the new servers are up, running, and
stable. Let's get what we have moved and working before improvem
Franck:
> And see if you can fix message readability, if I send a multi-part
> signed e-mail (TEXT+HTML) with PGP
>
> Like this one ;)
I do not understand what this has to do with DKIM.
Obviously I was able to read your message. Are you talking about in
mail list archives?
Russ
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we the Internet Standardization Development Task Force? It seems by this thread, many of us are afraid to do any engineering and just work on emails and paper.
I don't know about others, but I always liked testing some new technology at IETF meetings, but that see
I meant let's hold off until the transition is complete. I did not
mean to confuse.
Russ
At 04:45 PM 12/20/2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
Russ Housley wrote:
We are transitioning the ietf.org mail lists to a new Secretariat
next month. I'd like to table this idea until that transition is
comp
Russ Housley wrote:
I meant let's hold off until the transition is complete. I did not mean
to confuse.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I really did understand your note (and although my
opnion doesn't matter about such things, I'll add that I entirely agree with
yourjudicious operations management.
Total of 210 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Dec 21 00:53:02 EST 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.76% | 10 | 9.92% | 131999 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4.29% |9 | 3.98% |52938 | [EMAIL PROTECTE
Fred,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:16:22PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:39 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >In the same way that there is a difference between a bricklayer and
> >an architect there is a difference between an engineer and a
> >network admin.
>
> On De
29 matches
Mail list logo
