Hi Marshall,
Thanks for this update about ARIN's work.
Comments below.
Le 12 oct. 2010 à 17:06, Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
...
What worries me (and others) is that to give end
users an IPv6 /56 will generally require the assignments as short as /24s
to ISPs, due to the encapsulation of v4
On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 992df93e-1efb-4d68-bdd7-d5c7be02f...@americafree.tv, Marshall
Euba
nks writes:
Hello;
I think that people here would be interested in (and likely
concerned by) the ARIN 2010-9 proposal :
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.netmailto:d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have helped
anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one
I would hope that a practical benefit of IPv6 would be improved performance
as a result of support for large packets.
That said, I expect to be disappointed.
I had really hoped that IEEE would have made support for jumbo frames an
absolute requirement for all gigabit ethernet. But no, its an
When the big dig was going on in Boston, an entire interchange had to be
constructed was used for some years and then torn down again. The cost of
the interchange was in the high tens of millions of dollars.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Perhaps
The original idea seems to have been that IPSEC would be a big enough
incentive to upgrade.
Since then IPSEC has been separated out and we have discovered that packet
layer security is not nearly so useful as transport layer.
Back in PARC there was a think called error 33: building research on
On 2010-10-13 12:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The original idea seems to have been that IPSEC would be a big enough
incentive to upgrade.
I've been keeping out of this conversation because I have other things to do,
like working on effective technologies for v4/v6 coexistence, but I have
to
On 10/13/2010 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I have
to protest at this version of the IPv6 is more secure myth. I don't
think anybody ever advanced this as a serious technical incentive.
I heard the most august Howard Schmidt make a simple and direct claim that it
was, a few years
This is fine until any of this is done over an encrypted or
byte-manipulated transport and then it will infringe into the Glassey
Patent for which an already existing IPR Notice regarding geoGraphic
Control Codes used in specifying location based services, is on file.
Todd Glassey, IPR Owner.
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I would hope that a practical benefit of IPv6 would be improved performance
as a result of support for large packets.
That is, like almost all the other ambitiously extended
functionality of IPv6, an illusion.
I had really hoped that IEEE would have made support
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What was always pointed out is that IPv6 use of IPsec doesn't have to
deal with NAT traversal, which was an issue for IPv4 use of IPsec,
It should be noted that IPsec, including AH, works transparently
over port restricted IP, including end to end NAT, if a 4B SPI
is
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control of Ethernet
Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) '
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Common Control
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: yaco-wgchair-trac...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yaco-wgchair-tracker/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yaco-wgchair-tracker
Description: Discussion of the Yaco / WG Chairs' and
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: mai...@ietf.org (Multi-stream Attributes for Improving
Telepresence Application Interoperability)
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/maitai/
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/maitai
Description:
14 matches
Mail list logo
