Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
But on mobility, I think we blew it.
Not sure if you are referring to the mobile IP technology in
particular, but because I suspect that the following is a bit of a
secret to the larger community, mobile IPv4 is actually deployed and
used. And end users mostly
On 11/6/2004 3:53 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In IPv6, I see our job as standardizers to make sure the thing we have
defined is well-defined enough to let it work, and then get the hell
out of the way.
Pardon me for saying so, but I think that represents the canonical problem
with v6
Dave Crocker wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:53:00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So the death of IPv4 isn't going to happen with a bang. More like
a protracted series of whimpers
One of the great dangers of having a history of success is the way it
blinds us to new ways to fail.
Noel and Tony,
thanks for offering such wonderful foils for a technical discussion!
I'm going to do my best to rile the feathers of both of you, by appearing
to take a strong stand, but actually remaining solidly perched on the fence
between your positions, and manage to rile some so-far
Dear Harald,
This the first time I agree with everything in an IETF mail. Thank you to
be candid enough to have writen this.
May I just suggest one tunning: Investigate rather than Create the
mobile Internet? To preserve the possibility that there is not such a
thing as a mobile, or a
Harald,
While I agree with most of your analysis, I think there is a
different view of address space exhaustion that might be more
helpful and that there are several things the IETF can do to
impede the spread of IPv6. The other side of the why bother
deploying it argument is ok, we've decided
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:36:08PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Even if we ignore the address space issues entirely, we will
slide smoothly from NATs in IPv4 to NATs in IPv6 or, more
likely, ever more clever NATs and NAT technologies in
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:36:08PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Even if we ignore the address space issues entirely, we will
slide smoothly from NATs in IPv4 to NATs in IPv6 or, more
likely, ever more clever NATs and NAT technologies in IPv4
unless we are successful
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:53:00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So the death of IPv4 isn't going to happen with a bang. More like
a protracted series of whimpers
One of the great dangers of having a history of success is the way it
blinds us to new ways to fail.
In the case of IP
Dave Crocker wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:53:00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So the death of IPv4 isn't going to happen with a bang. More like
a protracted series of whimpers
One of the great dangers of having a history of success is the way it
blinds us to new ways to fail.
In the case
Dave Crocker wrote:
By way of noting one possible scanario that builds on today's
reality and leads down a path that never adopts IPv6,
As of today this _is_ the scenario. IPv6 is not even a buzzword anymore.
I'll ask: What if users turned all leaf networks into private
address space, so
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Date: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:20 AM
I'm stepping down as IETF chair in March, and I am not a candidate
for reappointment.
Harald:
I too would like to congratulate you on your successes, and suggest you have
the opportunity to be the last
--On Friday, 05 November, 2004 18:15 -0500 Noel Chiappa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too would like to congratulate you on your successes, and
suggest you have the opportunity to be the last chair to
preside over active work related to version 6 of the IP
protocol suite. With the passage of
At Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:33:00 -0500, John C. Klensin wrote:
Oh, my! The potential for a plenary food fight that has nothing
to do with administrative reorganizations. How very encouraging
and refreshing. ;-)
The quality of the ballistic grub might be higher than usual at any
rate, since
14 matches
Mail list logo
