suspect most of the list, think that whitelisting
should no longer be needed that isn't our call to make. All we can
do is encourage people to not whitelist by running dual stack
services without using whitelisting.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australi
ore and pick up today. I didn't have to configure
anything to achieve this other than have the router advertise a
second ULA prefix.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INT
> --===0194820202636702821==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
location.
And it needs a seperate I-D which indicates how equipement can signal
that it supports 240.0/10. Returning such a address to equipment that
is not prepared to receive is a *very* bad idea.
> Noel
> ___
> Ietf maili
In message <4ede4884.1030...@cisco.com>, Eliot Lear writes:
> Mark,
>
> On 12/5/11 10:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It's not that the CPE's can't renumber. The ISP are already using RFC
> > 1918, in good faith, internally to talk to the management int
ple of
> non-uniqueness, should be quite suited to populate the inside of a CGN.
Actually it isn't inherent. It's only if two of the parties involed
are forced to use the same address pools that renumbering is inherent.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dunda
me customers),
> > that is not an illusion, but rather a feature.
>
> You mean there is a privacy benefit in translating some address such
> as 10.1.1.2 into a routeable IPv4 address that can, as you say, be traced
> back to you even if it changes every day?
>
> You'll have to explain that.
>
> Brian
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ge as non-public to existing equipment is a lot
easier than adding IPv6 so that you can use DS-Lite. Much CPE
equipment doesn't have the flash capacity to do the later. The
former is trival provide the company that supplied the fireware is
still in business.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, I
e supported it. Similarly the
laters Linus and *BSD builds would have supported it (some already
do, sans signalling). CPE vendors would have turned it on.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
to
check. The ordinary PC that is not being used as a router is not a
issue with RFC 1918 addresses.
"If you have a router connected to the cable modem or are using a
PC in Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) mode please reconfigure it to not
use the address range "" for the home net
because the IETF is changing the
rules retrospectively. Using a RFC 1918 block for this purpose
will also force companies to stop using this block internally as
it will break routing over VPNs to addresses in this block.
Ask everyone everywhere that is using this block, in good faith,
for som
In message <20111204155527.be11218c...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Noel Chiappa write
s:
> > From: Mark Andrews
>
> > The CGN boxes are new. The customer boxes which are being allocated the
> > addresses are old. Lots of these boxes will not work with a 240/4
&
value is exactly
> > >>> zero. The fact that you have a finger to wag at someone doesn't make
> > >>> the costs of dealing with the conflict any smaller.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps. But I don't know the ISPs' business
s 10+ years old. We are talking about billions of machines
world wide.
224/10 could be made to work with new equipement provided there was
also signaling that the equipment supported it. That doesn't help
ISP that have new customers with old equipment and no addresses.
's not a very good idea. I would rather not see that allocation=
> being made.
By that logic I call for RFC 1918 to be made historic.
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
for the return address to be properly annotated.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made available?
> this has become a contest of wills, not a technical discussion.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
logies.
>
> They created the crisis. Why is it our responsibility to fix it for them?
Because they have asked for our help.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
can nolonger just shove the entire 32 IPv4 bits
into the IPv6 address with multiple use of this space within the
ISP.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
CAN-SPAM Act.
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And
Marketing Act
PROTECT IP Act.
Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft
of
Intellectual Property Act
Mark
[1] left for the reader to decide.
--
Mar
, effectively, hidden until the agenda
is published?
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
In message <4e3127f1.2030...@unfix.org>, Jeroen Massar writes:
> On 2011-07-28 01:36 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> [..]
> > Is there *one* tunnel management protocol that they all support or
> > does a cpe vendor have to implement multiple ones to reach them
> > all? I&#
In message <201107290238.p6t2cclu021...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes
:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Martin Rex writes:
> > >
> > > Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More correctly it is try the first address and if tha
In message <201107272350.p6rnodka019...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes
:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Dave Cridland writes:
> > >
> > > Happy eyeballs - try everything as soon as you can, in parallel. Drop
> > > everything else when
> various other closeby too ;)
>
> If you want to solve your problem though, I guess for HE you'll have to
> give them connectivity to their network and space in a rack for a box,
> gogo6 will sell you a box and for SixXS you provide the box+connectivity
> and we'll set
In message <9031.1311786432.357811@puncture>, Dave Cridland writes:
> On Wed Jul 27 06:25:49 2011, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28:06AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > > SRV provides load-balancing and failover. I never said that SRV
&g
In message
, Cameron Byrne writes:
> On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message <968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com>, Ted Lemon
> writes
> > :
> > > If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4,
In message , Tim Chown writes:
>
> On 27 Jul 2011, at 16:15, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Because it will come down to "run 6to4 and be exposed to some bug"
> > or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors
> > saying th
bug"
or "not run 6to4 but be safe from the bug". We already have vendors
saying they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
if it becomes historic.
> This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use 6to4v=
> 2 because it works bette
f things that require no-nat. 6to4 is just one of
them. ISP will end up providing no-nat for those that need it the
same way as they provide unfiltered port 25 for those that need it
and it also shouldn't cost more.
Yet there are relays out there and there are business cases to run
way.
Which is exactly why HISTORIC is NOT appropriate.
> Regards
>Brian Carpenter
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or any other new protocol.
>
> In contrast it seems that for many people the hacks existing in HTTP
> world (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IP) is the only way to go
> for a scalable infraestructure "so DNS SRV is not needed". Why so many
> efforts in disallowing an
erface Extensions for IPv6. A nameserver needs
to use some of the functionality in the IPv6 Advanced Socket API
to deal with the way IPv6 fragments packets.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
t; _______
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
rs would
> consider your SRV records. Maybe you could use them to progressively test
> service updates. You could possibly get a better distribution, or serve
> a maintenance page to some of them during maintenance operations instead
> of leaving them in the dark. You have to t
In message <20110725042921.gj22...@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:46:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Adding a SRV lookup should add 0ms if it isn't there as you should be
> > making A, and SRV lookups in parallel.
>
> This d
In message <3bc48562-6459-4fb9-9806-731af87fe...@network-heretics.com>, Keith M
oore writes:
> On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >>> How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/";
> >>> on "s1.joes-w
In message <4b3c19fd-b736-4da7-9db5-3d433320d...@network-heretics.com>, Keith M
oore writes:
> On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/";
> > on "s1.joes-web-service.c
In message
, John Tamplin writes:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Adding a SRV lookup should add 0ms if it isn't there as you should be
> > making A, and SRV lookups in parallel. Non-existance is as
> > cachable as existan
MX records. The Smart Relay host should
be seen as the same as a HTTP proxy.
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
poor practices, and we should be careful not to suggest to make it
> even worse.
>
> Regards,
> Willy
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour S
r to add it to the spec just because you have an opinion.
>
> Roy
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
default in the standard
> libraries the way that ordinary name resolution is. Making it the
> recognized best practice with a SHOULD would be preferable all else
> being equal.
No. MUST is what is needed. It's a new protocol. Do what's best from
day one.
--
Mark Andrews,
d.net
> - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
> - http://dave.cridland.net/
> Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymo
In message <4e290442.3010...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Transitioning HTTP to use SRV is trivial even with proxies.
> >
> > Transitioning HTTPS to use SRV is complicated because of proxies.
> > There needs
In message <0dd53760-9b8a-4569-8c67-81421a8a2...@network-heretics.com>, Keith M
oore writes:
> On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message <4e28c035.6020...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka =
> Ohta writes:
> >> Dave
e CNAME treated as a alias and the URL
gets re-written?
Take the case where one name really is a alias for the other.
ws.example.net CNAME example.net
_ws._tcp.example.net SRV 100 0 0 server.hoster.com.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Au
ears later.
>
> john
Except there are vendors who have already threatened to remove the
6to4 code if it is declared historic then you are left between a
rock and a hard place if you need to upgrade the software on the
6to4 router for other reasons and still want to use 6to4.
Not ev
ble IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU for
multicast packets (the default is to fragment multicast packets
at network MTU (1280)).
So to get this you need a broken stack or a brain dead application.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
d a probing protocol on top of it. We can have a theological
> argument about whether that counts as "using the DNS".
>
> R's,
> John
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
you're right and rDNS caches well, it's a
> good application for DNS. If I'm right and it doesn't cache at all, it's
> not such a good application.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"
>
email
which is looked up in the DNS. The worst using a different IPv6
address per email can do is double the cache requirements for the
same volume of email.
LRU cleaning of the cache will cope with this.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley,
gards,
> John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies
> ",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
once the isp has some IPv6
connectivity. The time and effort required to do this is minimal
compared to the time and effort required to deploy IPv6 to all of
its customers.
Remember you don't need to bill for this as the billing is already
taken care of with IPv4. You don't need to d
>
>
> _______
> fun mailing list
> f...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
n the internet is down -- then
> very few will want IPv6 to their homes (I certainly
> wouldn't want it), and IPv6 adoption will continue to
> drag along for several years.
>
>
> >
> > How do you think about P2P applications?
>
> NAT-PMP or IGD over UPnP co
In message <3d67bad3-45c1-47ac-bf42-9cefa7c4a...@bogus.com>, Joel Jaeggli write
s:
>
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message , Joel =
> Jaeggli writ
> > es:
> >>
> >> On Jun 25, 2011, at 5:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
&
se they are managed boxes.
>
> > Brian
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman
t day.
> (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, A
oing around in circles here.
Which often times requires special software to be installed. Tunnels
are a lot more hassle to setup and yes I've used both so I know.
6to4 historic is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Aus
=
> 2002::/16 and then failing to deliver the IPv4 packets. But this "return" p=
> roblem is easily solved by IPv6 ISP deploying their own 6to4 routers, and t=
> hus avoiding dependencies on a "generic" path to 2002::/16.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
--
Mark And
signal that 6to4 should not be
used in both of the above cases.
Similarly testing that you can reach the 6to4 relay router before
adding a route pointing to it or advertising a 6to4 prefix is a
good backup without the option however no all 6to4 relays have
machine listening on the all zeros address.
In message <4df2ba67.9080...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Ohta writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Lots of the perceived issues with broken 6to4 go away with reasonable
> > application support for multi-homed servers.
>
> True.
>
> A major design
esk advice to disable 1PV6 is
> > generally an echo of problems caused by on-by-default 6to4.
> >
> >Brian
> > _______
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mai
tter. Whenever something is proposed in the future
you will hear the kill 6to4 crowd say "6to4 is historic, we can't
work on that."
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
't notice it.
Making 6to4 historic is a knee jerk reaction to a bad default setting.
Fix the default. Don't make 6to4 historic.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
plans for implementation.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
In message <19fb0bb1-9048-476a-a901-67f962a11...@network-heretics.com>, Keith M
oore writes:
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Have broken 6to4 relays is *good* for the long term health of the
> > Internet. Applications should cope well with on
requirement
for applications. It really isn't any harder in most cases to do
this right.
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
st in
> Rockall and Malin, veering west or northwest 4 or 5, then backing southwest 5
> or 6 later. Rough or very rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
> occasionally poor.
> ___
> v6ops mailing list
> v6...@ietf.org
> https://www.ie
r 822 (I don't care to
look up which). This may now have been relaxed when these were updated but
RFC 1123 failed to formally do so as it only updates RFC 952.
Mark
> Eliot
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.i
> application programmer. I would want to have a call of the form 'get best
> connection for (protocol, domain_name) and have the platform figure it out
> using information that I would not want the application programmer to have
> access to.
Does it really matter if it in the applic
empting the second connection. The
wait for the 3rd connection is 250 ms, the 4th is 125 ms, the 5th
is 62 ms. You get the pattern. There are poll, select and thread
based versions.
Mark
> -Martin
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00.txt"
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf
In message <201010211458.o9lew8ta020...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes
:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > The DNS is not just name to address translation.
>
> It doesn't really matter what DNS trans
tnames into IP-Addresses should be
> trusted is fatally flawed and is totally ignorant about the fundamental
> architecture of the internet.
>
> -Martin
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
In message <9286.1286931...@marajade.sandelman.ca>, Michael Richardson writes:
>
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Andrews writes:
> Mark> In message
> Mark> <992df93e-1efb-4d68-bdd7-d5c7be02f...@americafree.tv>,
> Mark> Marshall Eub
ou have as many /56 as you have IPv4 addresses.
Round up to the next power of 2 and you have the amount of address
space you need to get from your RIR to support your 6rd deployment.
See RFC 5969.
Most ISP's IPv4 address allocations all fall within one or two /8.
That gives a /32 per conta
e X.509 CA. DNSSEC =
> also has the advantage of a defined trust anchor rollover protocol.)
> You can also use third party trust anchors such as th=
> e ISC's DLV.Tony. iv>--f.anthony.n.finch =A0<mailto:d...@dotat.at"; target=
> =3D"_blank">d...@dotat.at> =A0
repor=
> ts,
> > which is ietf-act...@ietf.org . =A0Sending complaints to that address will
> > generally get much faster results.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Glen
> > Glen Barney
> > IT Director
> > AMS (IETF Secretariat)
> >
> > _
>
> Every time the response is to try to beat down any question.
>
> If my questions seem vague it is because they are about the real world
> and that is rather vague.
I'm not avoiding the question. I'm pointing out that the level of
security required to add d
In message , Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > In message =
> , Phil
> > lip Hallam-Baker writes:
> >> Being able to verify signatures is of no value.
> >>
> >> The system only
the liability. Stuffing up either
NS or DS records will break the delegation.
> Does anyone know of a dotcom registrar offering key signing?
>
> Or is the big plan here that everyone who is not going to accept
> liability keep complaining about how far behind the registrars are
> u
ey were
ment to be added as a pair. Linux developers then componded Open
Group's error by hiding the optional parts of the API behind #ifdef's.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
__
.5 of a
second for each of the others however they are all being fetched
in parallel so the effective delay of all the other items combined
is only .5.
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> _______
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.o
write code for
the end state even if it is painful at the beginning.
> The key is to take the decision out of the hands of the application software
> so that it can be taken by the platform and allow the experience from one
> connection to be used to inform the choice made on the next.
-
In message <6cf0e212-c5f0-419f-87f1-1d8937c99...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The third choice is to do a non-blocking connect to IPv6 then if that =
> does
> > not succeed in 1 or 2 seconds (most succes
e
> rial approach nor do I see any other options than parallel vs. serial. Since
> you believe parallel open to be a problem, what is your proposed alternative
> ?
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
&g
hile you are upgrading getaddrinfo() change the sorting order of
of the addresses you return and you have addressed most of the tunnel
issues as well.
Mark
> Geert Jan
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
In message , Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only
> > served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry about MTA's
> > that don't kn
In message , Arnt Gul
brandsen writes:
> Mark Andrews writes:
> > Seriously, I do think it is time that the root and TLD's had IPv6 only
> > name servers.
>
> Why (and do you mean all 6-only or one 6-only)?
Because there are IPv6 only nameservers out there today. Not
In message <55562cf3cfc08c5c6da3d...@pst.jck.com>, John C Klensin writes:
>
>
> --On Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 +1000 Mark Andrews
> wrote:
>
> >
> > In message <01no5qt3qgkc000...@mauve.mrochek.com>,
> > ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com w rites:
>
ld
> the way you think.
>
> Ned
Turn off the root servers IPv4 address and see how fast people
adapt. :-)
Seriously, I do think it is time that the root and TLD's had IPv6
only name servers. I'm not advocating IPv4 be turned off on them
yet.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymou
In message <4c06e306.3050...@bogus.com>, joel jaeggli writes:
> On 2010-06-02 15:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> now would people please stop on this subject, the manufacturers know how
> >> to build this stuff.
> >
> > The only reference to IPv6 is "IPv6
market for IPv6 has to be
> > the less demanding users for whom a full IPv6 connection and a NAT-ed
> > IPv4 are going to serve perfectly well.
> >
> > I am not going to tell any of my friends or family to move to IPv6
> > unless it is absolutely guaranteed to be
tecture that would have the necessary
> properties quite easily. And so could many others on this list. But
> that would be a mistake. In order to get buy in from all the people
> whose buy in is needed, they have to be involved at the design stage.
>
> Having the had
In message <6e881f81-991d-4e98-932c-65cb49b02...@cisco.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat
rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
> On 31 maj 2010, at 08.03, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > MTAs should never search. MX records are absolute (explict or
> > implicit).
>
> Agree.
>
>
In message , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat
rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
> On 31 maj 2010, at 03.39, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > And have any of those that say this tried:
> >
> > 1) tried dual stack
> > 2) tried IPv6 only through NAT64 (NAT-PT)
> >
> > w
#x27;ve tried to run IPv6 only. Real IPv6 only, IPv4 completely
disabled in the OS. It wasn't fun.
Mark
> That I get the question, that people think in these terms, I think is
> "interesting".
>
>Patrik
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas
101 - 200 of 427 matches
Mail list logo
