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
I feel a little bad saying this, because these individuals deserve
recognition. But I rather think this memorial page is not a good idea.
If the IETF is around long enough, eventually all members of the
community will die. (Unless medical science makes some amazing
achievements, I suppose...)
On Feb 28, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
It may be intentional or not. But one of the designs has the eiffel
tower centered on the wearer's crotch area. This makes for an
interesting visual effect when worn
I suspect you might be referring to my submission of the Eiffel
I agree, and I think the original text is a better description of the
requirement.
Cheers,
-Benson
On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
As background, the actual errata is at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5226eid=2715
In it Julian suggests (wdiff shows the
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2011-12-06 22:06, Benson Schliesser wrote:
ISPs need to use addressing within this scope that does not cause
(additional)
problems for their existing customers (and their customers' equipment). And
in
the event of an addressing
On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I wasn't suggesting using general use for 240/ addresses, as endpoint names -
that's a hopeless cause, there are too many things out there that can't deal
with them. Who wants an address lots of people can't talk to (with, or
without, a
On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:58 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 5, 2011, at 1:13 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
this is a much stronger argument for a dear customer, either renumber or
upgrade your
hardware position
I'd imagine the vast majority of the customers of ISPs who are facing this
issue
Hi, Ron.
On Dec 3, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat.
I support the assignment of an IPv4 /10 for shared CGN space. Most of my
thoughts on this topic
On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/27/2011 11:15 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
In that spirit, my understanding was that LISP was an homage,
and as such should not be viewed in a negative light.
Unfortunately, what matters is the risk of the name's use being taken as
On Sep 23, 2011, at 20:54, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
So if there is going to be breakage, and folks are willing to fix it over
time because the good outweighs the bad (I personally do not believe this),
then why not dedicate 240/4 for this purpose?
240/4 would be very useful
On 9/24/11 11:24 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's avoid having yet another thread where there is no consensus but the
parties continue to restate their claims over and over.
Fair enough. We're discussing the reservation of a prefix; the context is a
foregone conclusion.
Hi, Brian.
On 9/23/11 3:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011-09-23 17:21, Benson Schliesser wrote:
However, I would like to make sure we don't lose sight of the need
for some urgency with draft-weil.
I'm a little puzzled by the claim of urgency; I remember
On 9/22/11 4:59 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
It's unclear from your statement if you're proposing adding the above to this
draft or to a subsequent draft.
Sorry. I think this should be a part of draft-weil. I think we'll end up
making further work in this space (e.g., if some
13 matches
Mail list logo
