--On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to ban me
> from the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable... His
> claim was that I failed to show him the money - that special case
Joe,
> It seems to me that direct assignment could quite possibly become the
> default for small IPv6 sites in the ARIN region. IPv6 uptake to date has
> been so tiny that I don't think anybody can predict what behaviours will
> become prevalent if/when IPv6 takes off.
We can't predict how econom
I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be criminallyprosecutable
in nature...Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't change anything.
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
To: TS Glassey ; IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Can you describe the difference between "early reviews
> performed by active participants" and just "participation"? In my
> mind, folks making suggestions and noting issues with a document during
> the working group phase are WG contributors, not re
On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I don't deny that some registries have started allocating PI prefixes
> for large sites.
ARIN is one such registry.
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58
All you need to do to qualify for a direct IPv6 assignment from ARIN
is to not
Leo,
On 2008-06-03 18:25, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 02/06/2008 11:24, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
>>> For all other
>>> cases it introduces a bias that has no science about it.
>>> In otherwords it introduces bias in 99.9% of cases.
>>> It helps in 0.1
Hi Ted,
Ted Hardie wrote:
> At 10:55 AM -0700 6/3/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> ***START OF TEXT
>> 4.2 Recipients of the review
>>
>> The list of recipients of the review is tricky to get right. The main
>> idea is to make sure all the relev
At 10:55 AM -0700 6/3/08, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>***START OF TEXT
>4.2 Recipients of the review
>
>The list of recipients of the review is tricky to get right. The main
>idea is to make sure all the relevant people receive the review. The
>
Hi Paul,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Agree. And this topic (the recipient list of the review) is something
>> I think hard about before I send out any review.
>
> That's good to hear, but I didn't see it reflected in the document;
> maybe your co-authors had a different slant. Regardless, my prefere
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
> The particular document at issue is "Default Address Selection for IP
> version 6". If you want to raise a similar issue for IPv4, I'm sure
> that there is an appropriate WG list for that as well.
The RFC covers IPv4 too, as it says in the abstract.
The particular document at issue is "Default Address Selection for IP version
6". If you want to raise a similar issue for IPv4, I'm sure that there is an
appropriate WG list for that as well.
At 12:39 PM 6/3/2008, Tony Finch wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>> Can I sugge
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Can I suggest this discussion be transferred off the main list and to
> either the 6man list or the v6opts list (or both) please?
It causes operational problems for IPv4 too.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
WIGHT POR
Can I suggest this discussion be transferred off the main list and to either
the 6man list or the v6opts list (or both) please?
Thanks - Mike
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 5/30/08 7:54 PM, Ted Hardie allegedly wrote:
>> There are several issues that get mixed up together in defining a late
>> external review process. By definition, this is an external review. So
>> it is not reasonable to say that the reviewer should think like a WG
>> member, or have the full e
Hi all,
2008/6/2 marcelo bagnulo braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> so, are you suggesting to keep rule 8 of source address selection
> (longest prefix match) and remove rule 9 of destiantion address
> selection (longest prefix match)?
>
> btw, an analysis of some multihomed scenarios and the impact
In case people want to read up on some of the history, here are some
links to earlier discussions for the Debian and GNU implementation of
the document. GNU Libc actually implements a different section 6 rule
9, see 'The IPv6 Problem' in the second link below.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugre
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Without some way to choose which rule to use and when to use it, how
> can a recommendation that has conditional rule usage be implemented?
The Kame/BSD IPv6 stack has a system-wide address selection policy.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ip6addr
Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without some way to choose which rule to use and when to use it, how
> can a recommendation that has conditional rule usage be implemented?
We could detail the method to establish which rule to use, but that
requires that we can get consensus on those d
Without some way to choose which rule to use and when to use it, how
can a recommendation that has conditional rule usage be implemented?
- Ralph
On Jun 3, 2008, at Jun 3, 2008,8:50 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Longest match in 3484 is a hack, ant
Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Longest match in 3484 is a hack, ant it only works some of the
> time. The WG most certinaly knew this when we approved the
> document. But it was felt that longest-match was better than no rule
> at all, as it helped on some situations.
>
> The real dis
Longest match in 3484 is a hack, ant it only works some of the
time. The WG most certinaly knew this when we approved the
document. But it was felt that longest-match was better than no rule
at all, as it helped on some situations.
The real discussion that should be held is what could we replace i
On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:37 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Telephone Number Mapping WG
(enum) to consider the following document:
- 'The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
Discovery System (DDDS) Application for Infrastructure ENUM '
a
22 matches
Mail list logo
