- Original Message -
From: Alexander Svensson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jim Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: GA List Monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:55 AM
Subject: [Admin] Warning (was: Re: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras)
Jim,
please keep in
Hi Erik,
There are many implementations that don't have the ability to
reassemble a 65,353 byte packet, at least not without allocating
a 64K buffer for this purpose. So, this seems to be a harsh
restriction to place on RFC 2893 implementations.
If we need to choose one or the other, I'd
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
There are many implementations that don't have the ability to
reassemble a 65,353 byte packet, at least not without allocating
a 64K buffer for this purpose. So, this seems to be a harsh
restriction to place on RFC 2893 implementations.
If
Do such implementations which have problems with 64KB packets need to be
able to use tunneling?
yes. think of small devices like DSL routers at home. they terminate
tunnels, and have severe memory limitations.
itojun
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do such implementations which have problems with 64KB packets need to be
able to use tunneling?
yes. think of small devices like DSL routers at home. they terminate
tunnels, and have severe memory limitations.
At least some of
Do such implementations which have problems with 64KB packets need to be
able to use tunneling?
I'm not sure -- do you think that home gateways, cable modems, DSL
modems, etc. will need to use tunneling?
Doesn't seem harsh to me (e.g. small devices like LCNA's should not have
to do this),
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I agree that a home security system or a car radio isn't likely to start
tunneling any time soon. But, most home gateways and SOHO routers are closed
embedded system with no disk and/or virtual memory. Do you expect that
they will need to use
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 10:07:55AM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Do such implementations which have problems with 64KB packets need to be
able to use tunneling?
I'm not sure -- do you think that home gateways, cable modems, DSL
modems, etc. will need to use tunneling?
There is a
But if they're designed so that they have problems with allocating 64 KB
of memory, there's something about the design that's wrong IMO.
It's not really a design issue, it is a cost issue...
The implementations used in these boxes are quite configurable -- the person
who integrates the
Hi, I'm having some problems on configuring a lab linux RH 7.1 - Kernel
2.4.14:
Here is the configuration of a machine with 3 interf.
[root@gateway07 /root]# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:5F:31:D9:DC
inet addr:192.168.74.253 Bcast:192.168.74.255
- Original Message -
From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do such implementations which have problems with 64KB packets need to be
able to use tunneling?
I'm not sure -- do you think that home gateways, cable modems, DSL
modems, etc. will need to use tunneling?
You
Date:Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:37:33 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| No significant changes will (or should) be made to the addressing
| architecture based on my personal opinions, even if a few other people
| agree
Date:Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:48:44 -0700
From:Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To be honest, I think it was about time that this issue came to a head.
| Because the issue is not about /127 prefixes, but it is about the
| reading of
From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now however, we know how much benefit there is to claim lots of address
space as early as possible, and then to dig in
Is that like claiming TLDs ?and not giving them up ?
Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
14 matches
Mail list logo
