Ofer Inbar wrote:
... what's next?
Carrier-based NAT?
Virtual-hosting encrypted http?
Actually using IPv6 en masse?
Something else?
Something else of port restricted IP, with which an IPv4 address
can be shared by 100 or 1,000 hosts while keeping the end to end
transparency.
On 2010-05-28 04:51, David Conrad wrote:
...
Well, no. While that is a problem, I suspect the real issue is:
'Within 18 months it is estimated that the number of new devices able to
connect to the world wide web will plummet as we run out of IP addresses'
I strongly suspect that Daniel
Patrik,
Of course, the exact depletion date experienced by an ISP will vary
very widely. 2015 is the date *most frequently* cited by the ISPs
reported on in draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-05-28 17:04, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I also think 2015 is very
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
To: Ofer Inbar c...@a.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:37 AM
The point of the article was to make more people aware of IPv6 and to
urge them actually start planning to move to IPv6.
I've got IPv6 at home
The size and timing of the address resource problem depends on your
viewpoint, of course. Your existing address resources, your growth rate,
your subscriber base, the extent to which more NATs remove your problem
all vary.
But I would argue this does not really matter so much. I think we have
On 05/28/2010 03:42 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
We will need also mainstream news articles in the latter.
Expect that around the end of July, intoning «In one year, the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority is expected…»
Arnt
___
Ietf mailing list
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= p...@cisco.com
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think. Note
that most of the difference between the protocols are features and
On 2010-05-29 03:01, David Conrad wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global
address sharing.
An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the
other form of global
On 05/28/2010 05:01 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global address
sharing.
An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the other
form of global
Noel ,
Really? As far as I can tell, there is still no general, defined, method to
allow an IPv6 host with a v6-only address (i.e. not an IPv4 address embedded
in an IPv6 address) to talk to an IPv4-only host.
So, for all that content which is IPv4 only, how does an IPv6-only host get
to it?
In message 20100528154216.d9fee6be...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, Noel Chiappa write
s:
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= p...@cisco.com
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think.
On May 28, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Consider bittorrent. Bittorrent clients generally can run behind NAT, but in
that case they have to be on the same ethernet as the NATbox, so it's a safe
bet that the bittorrent USER has a real address. Am I stepping out on a limb
if I
As Transitional RFC Series Editor (TRSE), I send a report to the IAB every 4
weeks.
The first was produced on 12 April. My two reports so far are now archived at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/RSE.html, exactly as sent to the IAB.
Community engagement and participation is an important component
My objective when talking to reporters who write for the *business*
section is to project that mere awareness is not good enough anymore for
businesses; businesses need to have a plan. For you all on this list
this should help the next time you talk to the suits who decide about
strategy and
Mark,
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4 only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite.
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack
(full stop). DS-Lite is needed in some situations,
IETF == IETF Administrative Director i...@ietf.org writes:
IETF 9. Members shall at all times act in a disinterested manner
IETF and consider only the benefit to the IETF standards process
IETF and community as a whole in discussions and decisions. The
IETF Members shall promptly
Hi Yaron,
I see your point. IKEv2-bis completely punts the issue and so you
want to too. If that's your tact you might want to mention _how_ an
implementation is supposed to interoperate with a AAA server, like
an RFC that defines this behavior. If there is no RFC to define the
behavior you
At 10:15 28-05-10, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is considering the adoption of IAOC Administrative Procedures
and seeks your comments before adoption. These procedures address such
matters as quorums, voting, election and removal of the chair,
compensation and expenses, and
Thanks for forwarding these, some comments in-line.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, IETF Administrative Director
i...@ietf.org wrote:
All;
The IAOC is considering the adoption of IAOC Administrative Procedures
and seeks your comments before adoption. These procedures address such
matters
In message 4c001bd5.4020...@piuha.net, Jari Arkko writes:
Mark,
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4 only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite.
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use
Jari Arkko wrote:
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4
only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite.
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack
(full stop).
Do you mean IPv6
At 15:10 28-05-10, Ted Hardie wrote:
It is common to have different notice requirements for in-person and
teleconference meetings. I would suggest that the IAOC do the same,
using something like 30 days for in-person and two weeks for teleconferences.
Yes.
Provided it meets the requirements
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements '
draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Multi-hop Routing Extension '
draft-ietf-hip-via-01.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'HIP (Host Identity Protocol) Immediate Carriage and Conveyance of
Upper- layer Protocol Signaling (HICCUPS) '
draft-ietf-hip-hiccups-02.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG
All;
The IAOC is considering the adoption of IAOC Administrative Procedures
and seeks your comments before adoption. These procedures address such
matters as quorums, voting, election and removal of the chair,
compensation and expenses, and recusal.
The proposed procedures are set out below
The SOC WG hold a WebEx virtual interim meeting on Tuesday, June 29th,
2010 at 11:00 EDT (17:00 CET; 15:00 UTC) for 1.5 hours.
Agenda and other details will be posted on the SOC mailing list
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/maillist.html)
prior to the meeting.
27 matches
Mail list logo
