Hi Francis, thanks for following up on this.
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-to this probability one should add administrative probability where
same prefixes are accidentally assigned to two entities.
= this is like link-layer address collision (for instance two Ethernet
Hello Gonzales,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gonzalo Camarillo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore, comments about the actual format are very welcome. Other
comments are interesting for other documents, but I do not think the
IESG has to be involved in such a discussion until those
Hi,
The draft defines how to express IPv6 addresses in SDP. How you use this
format is up to the application (i.e., outside the scope of this draft).
Remember that SDP is used by many protocols (SIP, SAP, MGCP, RTSP).
A good example is SIP. An MMUSIC document defines how to use SDP in
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
= I believe you've mixed in a confusing way the uniqueness of an
address/IID on a link (guaranteed by DAD) and the uniqueness of
a CGA from the security point of view. They are very different
questions.
Ok, I didn't want to generate any confusion. If
At 11:18 AM -0800 1/23/02, JJ Behrens wrote:
Please forgive me for being a newbie, but it seems wise to allow
subnetting of the lower 64 bits. Afterall, it would be terrible if my
dialup ISP assigned a /64 to me, and I had to rely on some IPv6 mythical
NAT to do subnetting!
The IAB/IESG
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Steve Deering wrote:
Would you apply the RFC3194 0.8 HD ratio to subnets within a single ISP?
No, the plan as I understand it is to apply the HD ratio to the number
of /48s, when evaluating an ISP's application for more address space.
So if an ISP came along and said we
At 6:03 PM + 2/1/02, Tim Chown wrote:
If that's static /48's, the /29 boundary will need revision...(and
certainly a /35 would be useless to any medium ISP).
Yes, those boundaries are currently under discussion in the registry
community, and I certainly expect them to change. (Though as
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Francis Dupont
Enviado el: jueves, 07 de febrero de 2002 22:41
Para: Alexandru Petrescu
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Randomness and uniqueness
= if this argument is used in order to avoid (or to
In your previous mail you wrote:
PPS: with respect to security there's ongoing discussion on Mobile IP,
around a novel method to generate addresses (Computationally
Generated Addresses).
= there is no reason to avoid DAD on CGAs: CGAs and RFC 3041 are
In your previous mail you wrote:
= the probability argument gives no guarantee.
Nothing can give you full guarantees
= globally unique IIDs give a full guarantee as I explained
in a previous mail (with what is this guarantee).
There is no option that always work,
all the
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Enviado el: viernes, 08 de febrero de 2002 18:29
Para: marcelo bagnulo
CC: Alexandru Petrescu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Randomness and uniqueness
In your previous mail you wrote:
if you do agree
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
In your previous mail you wrote:
= the probability argument gives no guarantee.
Nothing can give you full guarantees
= globally unique IIDs give a full guarantee as I explained
in a previous mail
At 5:02 PM +0100 2/1/02, Tomas Lund wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Robert Elz wrote:
| 3. Is it ok to use longer than a /64 for links ?
That is, the suggestion isn't to pressure people to use /126 or something
(as your #2 would do), nor to tell people that it isn't OK to use a /64
/127
At 1:39 PM -0500 2/1/02, Keith Moore wrote:
To me it seems entirely plausible that networks consisting of large
numbers of point-to-point links, assembled into trees, will be all the
rage in a few years. Even Ethernet is becoming more a point-to-point
technology rather than a bus technology.
These issues have also come up in the addr/prefix discussion; the issue
was originally discussed in November.
What do others think -- is this something worth noting?
--
Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and
At 3:54 PM -0500 2/8/02, Keith Moore wrote:
So if an ISP came along and said we have a million customers signed up,
we want to give them static /48 prefixes to their current home xDSL lines,
and thus we'd like a /23, that should be approved? (2^25^0.8 ~= 1M)
Yes, absolutely, assuming
16 matches
Mail list logo
