I am in International E, without v6 on WLAN, but can v4 ssh home and
trace from there to the v6 router here. Then I see VERY good response
over the JANET-GEANT-Abilene-IETF route.
Maybe it's a Euro6IX issue for you, for specific routing to that prefix
as opposed to the production prefix, if GE
Hmm, maybe we could put an IPv4 and IPv6 proponent in the ring?
But who would pay to see it?
Tim
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:13:23PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> see http://www.fightforchildren.org/events_2_1.asp
> At 03:57 PM 11/11/2004, William Gilliam wrote:
>
> >OK, I'll ask.
> >
> >Who convin
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:59:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Now, having done that, I can either jump through lots of hassles configuring
> a 6to4 proxy, or I can just type www.cnn.com in the browser window.
>
> It isn't just whether *I* can/have done it, it's *also* about whether the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
>
> 1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
> 2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment.
>
> I hear a lot of muttering about NATs b
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:17AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> But this has also happened lately; not everybody is so short-sighted:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp
Since you cite Nokia, it's interesting that on the Communicator 9500 you
can run a regular voice c
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Depends on the type of home user ;)
> Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
> segments (wired, wireless, office or something) and maybe a max of 20
> hosts. Changing the IP's of those hosts should not be
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:44:07AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
> >Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
> >continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
> >will focus attention on the obv
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:44:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +0000, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on the type of home user ;)
> > > Nevertheless, most homes
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:45:51AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] has already been denied posting rights on at least
> one IETF WG mailing list because of this behaviour.
>
> Is it time to dig out RFC 3683/BCP 83?
>
> BTW - has anyone, anywhere ever seen a response fro
Hi,
Our anti-virus system tags all IETF draft announcements as being potentially
dangerous. I suspect because of the unusual options to fetch the data that
are encoded in the MIME header.
We would certainly like to see that feature removed from IETF announcements,
as it seems archaic. This ma
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:54:10AM -0600, Christopher A Bongaarts wrote:
> In the immortal words of lafur Gumundsson:
>
> > The good news:
> > Last December Minneapolis started a Light Rail Service between
> > downtown and Mall of America with a stop at the airport.
> > The ride costs $1.25 each w
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:07:09PM -0800, Stephen Casner wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> > IETF 62 inagurates a new streaming effort. Instead of covering only two
> > rooms it is our intention to cover all eight. Instead of multicast video
> > delivery, unicast audio-only. It
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:39:43PM +, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> http://www.surgeradio.co.uk/listen/advanced.html
>
> http://www.ipv6.ecs.soton.ac.uk/virginradio/vruk-hi-mp3.m3u (MP3)
Just to confirm these are IPv6 unicast, but we support multicast for
both al
Much gnashing of teeth in Salon D this morning.
DHCP failing for v4, IPv6 connectivity coming and goping
Seems everyone in the room is affected.
(So we didn't get a jabber scribe for mboned ;)
--
Tim
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www
It seems the cutoff is more often a driver to get updates written, and 00
drafts kicked off. One alternative is to review other means to encourage
timely and regular draft updates? This might help distribute the load
through the year rather than into three hectic chokepoints.
Tim
On Mon, Mar 07
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:04:52AM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have already seen
> several major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
> with IPv6, even though they can get enough public address space.
Do you have
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Jordi, I thought that Jim Martin's message under subject
> "IETF62 Wireless Network Update" had already explained
> what was happening (and IPv6 was a victim of those
> circumstances). Of course this was very annoying and nobody
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:35:21AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
>
> The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
> though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
> these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced
> me some years a
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:18:00AM -0800, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>
> Not exactly, Telekom Austria spent more than a year ramping up for the
> meeting AND they had installed and controled all of the in building
> network for the Austria Center Vienna. They did a great job, but they
> had way more acc
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:37:45AM -0800, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>
> Ask Jim/Karen/etc when they got access to any given room here in the
> Hilton...
It is a thankless task, I emphasise :) But the rooms are preumably the
same with each Minneapolis running.
> This has been done several times - af
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:47:05PM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Simply saying that a network which is built by volunteers (or by anyone
> else for that matter) MUST be reliable is just naive. It's a bit like
> saying operating systems and other software must be bug free. Keep in
> mind that the
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 05:02:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> It is precisely the style of thinking, and not the specifics,
> that I was trying to suggest and illustrate.
Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alc
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
> >rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
>
> I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
> violate list p
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 06:14:16AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carsten Bormann writ
> es:
> >Now that the two previous main concerns about the Paris IETF are
> >under control (nobody has died from the heat yet and the pocket loss
> >rate is at the expected
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote:
>
> What do other people think?
Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:14:01PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> >(As announced to the ISOC membership)
> >
> >Announcing the IETF Journal - a new ISOC publication
> >
> >ISOC is pleased to announce the "IETF Journal", a new Internet Society
> >publicatio
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:39:18PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Excuse me Stéphane, but I do not find these comments constructive.
> Anyone planning an international meeting for 1000+ people has
> to take a great many things seriously that you seem to think
> are amusing. We had some serious s
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:52:23AM -0500, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG to
> consider the following document:
>
> - 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and
>Aggregation Plan '
> as a Proposed St
Hi,
Has there been any discussion in the upper echelons of the IETF about the
issue of Friday sessions?
If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with around 3-5
meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or more are BoFs.
Is this likely to continue, such that if you're fro
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
> credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
> Should be open *really* soon now.
And the hotel info?
(And is the meeting ending 11.30am o
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:45:51AM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
> >Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?
>
> Yes there are. Here's the one I use:
>
> http://www.orangeware.com/endusers/wirelessformac.html
>
> There's a fairly long list of supported cards, some of which support
> 802.11a.
Hi,
I guess some people not in Dallas may have missed the news of the freak
local flooding here.
I was downtown with three colleagues and tried to come back to the hotel
around 5.30pm Sunday and hit the huge traffic jam. Our taxi couldn't cross
the freeway to the hotel side because the police ha
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:43:11PM -0600, Jim Martin wrote:
> Gentlepeople,
> Yesterday and this morning, we had an issue for the wired and
> wireless networks in the Terminal Room area that prevented IPv4 RAs
> from reaching the user devices. This has been resolved and we believe
> we
Hi,
Is there any way a non-US citizen can buy one of the promotional 770's
available at the event and walk out with a receipt in their name?
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:35:13PM -0600, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
> >
> >This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
> >
> >That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
>
> Mmm
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
> logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however would be to seek 'partne
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
> Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
> quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
> is some amount of precedence for th
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
>
> VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim
meeting you need to determine which sy
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:10:47PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient
> > than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to
> > discus
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:43:57PM -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> >Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
> >put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
>
> Brian,
>
> this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
> in t
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
> in March 1993
Interesting discussion.
Keith is hitting all the nails on the head. Phillip seems to suggest
that consumers buy NATs out of choice. They don't have any choice.
I surveyed my final years students last month. Just four have a static
IPv4 allocation for their home network, and only one has more
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 01:54:52AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > If you deploy IPv6 NAT, you may as well stay with IPv4.
>
> You're the one who convinced me some three years ago that there will be
> IPv6 NAT no matter what, what's the message he
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:04:15PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> What was the problem again?
Apparently that Steve Deering is an arrogant, stupid engineer.
Allegedly ;)
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> The thing that is good about IPv6 is that once you get yourself a /
> 64, you can subdivide it yourself and still have four billion times
> the IPv4 address space. (But you'd be giving up the autoconfiguration
> advanta
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:07:50PM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> Thanks to IAD for opening registration (helps with visa requests, although
> this is less of a problem in Canada than "elsewhere in North America").
Yes, very nice to have the hotel and registration open 3 month in advance
this
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:29:21PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Tomorrow Saturday June 3 at 12:00am EST, we will be taking down one of
> the round robin www servers for the IETF (209.173.53.180) for
> maintenance in preparation for supporting IPV6. The outage should be
> less
On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex wrote:
> I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
> IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting slots
> in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
> local time zone *anywhere*.
>
> I would appreciate
On 6 Mar 2013, at 22:09, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
> On 2013-02-27 10:20 Tim Chown said the following:
>> On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex wrote:
>>
>>> I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
>>> IETF Meeting Agendas, because it sp
On 6 Apr 2013, at 16:39, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" wrote:
>
> On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, "Abdussalam Baryun"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the date is
>> special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
>>
>
> Surely the correct requirement is :
>
> If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hys
draft is a bad
>>> idea.
> I'm not sure I see that as worse than referring to Wikipedia, an expired
> draft has the property that it's not going to change. I have no problem with
> the idea that it would be an informative reference. but yes it's a bit much
>
Yes, thanks all - I think we're nearly there…
Tim
On 13 May 2013, at 02:58, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
> Hi, Robert
>
> Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot.
> Many thanks to you.
>
> All the best,
> Bing
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Robert Sparks
On 27 May 2013, at 05:15, "John Levine" wrote:
>> The move appears to be related to new, restrictive
>> regulations the Argentine government has imposed on currency exchanges.'
>> According to the Telegraph, 'The new regulations required anyone wanting
>> to change Argentine pesos into another
On 27 May 2013, at 16:37, John R Levine wrote:
>> Is this above advice from Tripadvisor correct?
>
> I believe so, but when I was there a few years ago for the ICANN meeting,
> excess cash was not a problem. It wasn't hard to estimate how much cash I'd
> need, and whatever was left I spent at
On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> So why not move the signal?
>> Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for
>> everything else.
>
> The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am not
> res
On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:12, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>>
>> As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads run
>> well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response time, ULA
>> usage, "b
So I was looking at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart to check
the sdnssd BoF text, and was surprised to see a total of 15 proposed BoFs. That
seems to be something of a record?
That people are coming to the IETF with proposals to do work is probably a
healthy thing; it would b
On 5 Jul 2013, at 15:30, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, July 05, 2013 07:40 +0100 l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> It strikes me that 'membership fees' as opposed to 'entrance
>> fees' could work around this payment issue. Or incur a
>> different tax...
>
> But the use of a term like "memb
On 24 Jul 2013, at 16:18, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Janet,
>
>> I am another remote participant who would like to be able to subscribe to
>> the meeting-specific mailing list.
>>
>> I can skip (myself) the ones about coffee and cookies, but definitely want
>> to read the ones about schedule chan
On 26 Jul 2013, at 07:36, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On 7/24/13, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 09:22 +0300 IETF Chair
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to let you know about an experiment we are trying out
>>> in Berlin.
>>> ...
>>> But we want as many people as possible t
On 26 Jul 2013, at 21:48, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:29 -0700 SM
> wrote:
>
>> POSH has not published a session agenda. However, the BoF is
>> listed on the meeting agenda. Is the BoF cancelled or will
>> this be one of those willful violations of IETF Best C
On 26 Jul 2013, at 23:31, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, July 26, 2013 22:48 +0100 Tim Chown
> wrote:
>>
>> That means the charter agreed from the bashing of the draft
>> charter in the previous 40 minutes, not that a charter is
>> already agreed.
>
>
On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
>
> I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
> wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
>
> The case for hav
On 4 Aug 2013, at 20:53, "John Levine" wrote:
>> If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
>> summary - I strongly object.
>
> As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
>
> Seems like rough consensus to me.
And the code is running…
Tim
On 23 Aug 2013, at 18:49, manning bill wrote:
> and the hotel is fully booked….
I guess it got fixed Bill, though I only booked for the meeting week itself.
tim
>
> /bill
>
>
> On 23August2013Friday, at 6:36, IETF Secretariat wrote:
>
>> 88th IETF Meeting
>> Vancouver, BC, Canada
>> Novem
Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour
on this list?
Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago...
Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other
posters, whether new or veteran.
Tim
On 6 Sep 2013, at 21:32, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adam Novak wrote:
>> The IETF focused on developing protocols (and reserving the necessary
>> network numbers) to facilitate direct network peering between private
>> individuals, it could make it much more expen
On 7 Sep 2013, at 04:05, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
>> From: Scott Brim
>
>> The encapsulation is not much of an obstacle to packet examination.
>
> There was actually a proposal a couple of weeks back in the WG to encrypt all
> traffic on the inter-xTR stage.
>
> The win i
On 20 Jan 2012, at 00:37, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>
> Good suggestion Brian.
>
> I just called our corporate travel department and got the same rate as IETF,
> including free Internet and breakfast, and "cancel by 6 PM on check-in day".
Nice if you have such a department :)
I booked a room by
On 23 Apr 2012, at 06:48, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> On 23/04/12 13:41, Joel jaeggli wrote:.
>>
>> What property of the blue sheet makes it personal data.
>
> The fact that publishing them will allow to track in which location (i.e.
> meeting room) you are/were at a given point in time. Basically
If the purpose is simply differentiation of people with the same names, could
we not ask people to enter the last four digits of their IETF registration
number, which would presumably be unique, while being easy to remember? The
number could even be on your badge to always be easy to look up.
dentity on the mailing list, or to the "Fei Zhang" who attends the Vancouver
> meeting, so I'm not sure what purpose it serves.
>
> Yoav
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim
> Chown
>
On 3 Aug 2012, at 22:56, Mary Barnes wrote:
> The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing) is that if you were
> attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between
> sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your way through the corridor
> as many people were ha
On 3 Aug 2012, at 23:38, James Polk wrote:
>
> To me the exceptional aspects far outweighed the bad things - so I'm chalking
> this venue up as one of the best in 13 years of attending IETFs, and a
> *serious* contrast to the Paris venue (which I believe was one of the worst -
> each time we w
Hi,
My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Great
meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and Maastricht.
Of course, you have to experiment to find good repeat venues...
Tim
m
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver.
>> Great meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
>>
>> My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and
On 16 Nov 2012, at 13:25, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> Moving the IETF forward will involve reaching out to other peoples,
> other regions, and yes, travel farther away once in a while. I also
> understand that we need to do our part in terms of fostering and
> increasing the contribution of our r
On 29 Nov 2012, at 18:51, SM wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to
>> be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At
>> the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in session
On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:11, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> I agree with the notion that the primary purpose of the meeting is
> discussion. What you and I tell those who present in v6ops is that we want
> the presentation to guide and support a discussion, and anything that is pure
> presentation sho
On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Do we really need to go through all this again?
>
> As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
> a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays are working,
> 6to4 as a general mechanism for attachment to th
On 8 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> Nor, bluntly, is it about a few big content providers or whomever else you
> want to label as important. The internet is a hugely diverse place, and you
> don't get to dismiss the concerns of people whom you want to label as red
> herrings. Ag
I agree the draft should be progressed, so add another +1 to the 'just ship it'
people.
On 9 Jun 2011, at 18:39, Keith Moore wrote:
> If pain associated with 6to4 provides an additional incentive for ISPs to
> deploy native v6, and for users to use native v6 when it becomes available,
> that's
On 13 Jun 2011, at 16:28, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> If 6to4 has problems, fine, write a document that says something like '6to4
> won't work for a host behind a NAT box because the host won't know it's true
> IPv4 global-scope address - so you should also not turn 6to4 on by default'
> and fix/publ
On 18 Jun 2011, at 17:08, John R. Levine wrote:
>> As far as renting a car, it is likely a very good choice for anyone that is
>> arriving in Montreal later in the day. I have a choice of one direct flight
>> to Montreal that puts me arriving in Montreal > 7pm.
>
> FYI, there is a direct bus fr
On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:28, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2011, at 14:02, Simon Perreault wrote:
>
>> Not going to argue about "San Diego vs Québec", but just going to point
>> out that multiple carriers do serve Québec. Among them are Air Canada,
>> United, Continental, Delta, and US Airways.
On 25 Jun 2011, at 05:18, Christian Huitema wrote:
> It seems that we have wide consensus to publish the advisory document, not so
> much for the "6to4 historic" part. Can we just publish the advisory and be
> done with this thread?
I'm a little confused by this discussion.
I had thought the
On 3 Jul 2011, at 12:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 11:11:43PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>> There's clearly a lack of consensus to support it.
>
> There's two very vocal persons opposing it and a much larger number of
> people that support it, but have not the time to write a
I think this draft specifies a very useful protocol, which we have used at our
site and which has been a valuable multicast debugging tool.
The specification and implementations have evolved over maybe 5-6 years or so.
The implementations we've used have been of various stages of the protocol's
On 7 Jul 2011, at 03:36, Glen Zorn wrote:
> On 7/6/2011 10:38 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
>> Has anyone found a particularly good solution to reading drafts on an ipad?
>> What about markup and notes on drafts?
>
> The iPad is a porn toy; get a real computer.
You could save drafts as PDF and
On 25 Jul 2011, at 15:30, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>
> Please post your views on this course of action by August 8, 2011.
Some observations.
Our own users made use of 6to4 maybe 8+ years ago, and at the time it was handy
to have. Today though we're not aware of any of our users running 6to4
inte
On 26 Jul 2011, at 15:14, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> So in summary, in practice 3484-bis and the 6to4-advisory off-by-default will
> further reduce what little use there is of 6to4 now, and happy eyeballs will
> mitigate any remaining instances of its use that are bad. So whether 6to4
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 they are thinking about pulling 6to4 from their code bases
> if it becomes historic.
I would note t
On 27 Jul 2011, at 17:03, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 0d20eb6-78c9-415d-9493-3aa08faac...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Tim Chown writes:
>>
>> a) use 6to4 anyway on an open platform like OpenWRT
>
> Which may or may not still have the code. OpenWRT could remove
> support just the s
On 28 Jul 2011, at 21:51, Michel Py wrote:
> Lorenzo,
>
>> Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics/
>
> Thanks for the update.
> Clarification: in your stats, is AS12322's traffic classified as native
> or as 6to4/teredo?
Hi,
I just ran a search through our Ne
The room rate I see is 8500 TWD, which is $293 a night. That is a Grand King
room, for 2 people.
If you don't put G-23ET in the corporate/group box, it gets much worse! I'm
guessing the web link on the IETF site should read
http://taipei.grand.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/index.jsp?extCorporateId=
Oh, and *after* you book, it says
Additional Charges
10.000 Percent service charge
So the charge is 10% higher than what's displayed. It would be nice if the full
charge was more up front. People checking for budget in advance may be unaware
of this.
Tim
On 23 Aug 2011, at 13:22
On 22 Aug 2011, at 23:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> +1 to Ned. I can't see why this draft seems to make some people
> go defensive - it isn't saying "IPv4 is evil" or anything silly
> like that, it's just saying "IPv6 is the future".
>
> RFC1122v6 is another matter entirely. We clearly aren't r
On 24 Aug 2011, at 21:58, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Geoff Mulligan
> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> You could pick Rosemont, IL (next to O'hare) for every meeting (oops,
>> sorry - misses on decent food).
>
> Minneapolis or Chicago, one place doesn't make it. The poli
On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:58, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
>
> I'm not saying this is the whole problem -- and it would be interesting to
> graph US meetings separately -- but the weakness of the dollar has to be a
> factor. -- Nathaniel
The graphs are really interesting, but the fact remains you c
On 23 Oct 2011, at 18:28, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Nurit,
>
> I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right.
>
> If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting
> per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless
> where you come from. That is if you
101 - 200 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
