On Jan 20, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Besides the suggestion already given, if you go to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html start with a search on IMAP.
RFC1730 will be one of the first (in chronological order) of the 47
entries, you will find out in the More Info
++;
On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
The Westin Bayshore just called me to tell me that they are
undergoing renovations,
and so unfortunately they are kicking me out of the room that I had
reserved in early September.
They offered to put me up in the Renaissance 5 blocks
On Oct 9, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
is it provable that no design for a follow-on to IPv4 would have
provided that backward compatibility?
Hi Ralph,
I don't know about 'provable', but there's a strong argument as to
why that's challenging.
Any new design would have
On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:29 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Any new design would have necessarily required more bits to
address more end systems. Making legacy systems interact with
these additional addressing bits without some form of gateway, NAT
On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:05 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to support a non-scalable routing
subsystem.
my
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, how is it possible to automate the renumbering of my firewall
entries which contain IPv6 addresses and prefixes?
How is it possible to automate the renumbering of my extranet business
partner firewalls who also
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The idea is this: An association is an end-to-end relationship
between a pair of applications that potentially spans several
transport lifetimes.
Wouldn't that be the OSI session layer (that IP doesn't have)?
Not necessarily. A
Anyhow, you can see where this might lead...
All practical address spaces are finite and thus must be used
conservatively.
Tony
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Keith,
It seems likely that cable mso's similar will dole out /64's to
customers one at a time, ...
The issue is that IPv6 is architected to give sufficient addresses to
end users, and by screwing with this ARIN is harming both
deployability
of IPv6, manaegability of IPv6, and usability
end users are
still long enough to allow a couple of additional layers of network to
be hung off of them.
The only way to do what you want is to effectively have a variable
length address. While there were a few crazy advocates of this many
years ago, they were shouted down.
Tony Li
Lead
Keith,
perhaps, but one might also reasonably expect 2^0 networks to be
insufficient.
At the risk of repeating myself, I respectfully disagree. Given that
you
can reasonably build a flat subnet of 1000 hosts today, it does
not seem like an unreasonable entry point. Mom Pop 6-pack
have
variable length addresses are a better idea than it appears at first
glance. they do bring certain difficulties with them, especially when
trying to do fiber-speed switching in hardware.
Poppycock. Hardware for switching variable length addresses
first showed up about 15 YEARS ago. This
When they do, they are violating the premises on which they received
their allocation. As such any ISP which is not willing to provide
a /48*
to an end-user should get their IPv6 allocation revoked by the RIR.
Could you please site chapter and verse? Here's what I can find:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
It seems likely that cable mso's similar will dole out /64's to
customers one at a time, I suppose that's acceptable if not
necessarily
desirable and will probably still result in the use of nat
mechanisms in
end systems.
that's
On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is -- I took Keith's comment to mean that
home NATs with v6 were completely unacceptable.
/64's do NOT imply that there's NAT functionality involved, just that
there's
a single subnet, yes?
Tony
On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote:
Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US?
Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed.
Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to be working on v6.
Tony
___
Ietf mailing
On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
In the old engineering attitude, working groups were created because
several like-minded engineers wanted to develop some function, or
protocol. It was important for them to get together, so they could
voluntarily agree on the details. If
I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and
having
sub-ADs report to them.
It's well known that when dealing with a scalability issue, the way
to address the issue is to install hierarchy. [Have you
On Jul 1, 2007, at 6:34 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
maybe we can have the default IETF61 SSID be pro-IPv6, and SSID
legacy be IPv4-only :-P
Ahh, well. That moves the change from being coercive to being cool.
No, that moves it to being
On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 20:46, Tony Li wrote:
I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and
having
sub-ADs report to them.
It's well known that when dealing
21 matches
Mail list logo
