On 26 Nov 2012, at 20:41, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>> http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
> Yes, like Benson, I am at a loss for why they do not use RFC 6598 addresses.
> That's what someone should tell these goofballs t
On 11/26/12 2:56 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution. Th
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
> On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>>
>> It's Friday. Time to plug IPv6 some more. :-)
>>
>> http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
>>
>> LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solu
On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
It's Friday. Time to plug IPv6 some more. :-)
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution. They
avoided conflicts with RFC 1918 space by hijacking IPv4 sp
I expect to be flamed for suggesting it, but why not use the Shared
Address Space for this purpose? (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598)
Cheers,
-Benson
On 11/26/12 11:52 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
As LogMein says, even with the TMobile and Rogers use, it's extremely
unlikely that their custo
As LogMein says, even with the TMobile and Rogers use, it's extremely
unlikely that their customers will need to communicate with any hosts in
25/8. That said, I absolutely agree that an IPv4 range devoted to VPNs
would be great. I run a personal VPN to my home LAN, and I specifically use
different
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution. They
avoided conflicts with RFC 1918 space by hijacking IPv4 space in 5/8, now
actively being allocated by LI
Further trimming it to sections that require a response.
On Nov 21, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>>>
>>> *** Minor issues *** :
>>>
>>> -- section 2.2, last paragraph:
>>>
>>> The IKE mention lacks context. Do you mean to suggest IKE with IPSec? I
>>> assume so, but there's been n
