On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 22:24 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
-When (and how) did site-locals become the main obstacle standing in
the
way of solving the routing/identifier problem?
-When (and how) did all the other reasons that have been advanced to
stymie
any work on the routing/iden
Tony Hain wrote:
>
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> > ...
> > Bad, bad application developers. We should really punish them! :-)
>
> Recognizing the smile, punishment was not my point. What many are
> missing here is that the perspective of a single address scope does not,
> and will not match the re
I suspect there is a trivial DOS attack against this, despite the
one-per-day rule. We will need to think long and hard about how to make
such a system both idiot-proof and sabotage-proof.
Brian
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
> Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
> > This is fine as long as Nokia never g
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On lördag, apr 5, 2003, at 22:24 Europe/Stockholm, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> -When (and how) did site-locals become the main obstacle standing in
|> the
|> way of solving the routing/identifier problem?
|>
|> -When (and how) did all
Tony,
Tony Hain wrote:
...
> ... It is
> incumbent on the IPv6 WG to deliver a viable PI replacement BEFORE
> removing the only PI addressing model we have.
This is where we disagree. I think we have learnt since FEC0::/10
was defined (in 1995) that ambiguous PI space is *not* viable,
as a resul
Dan Lanciani wrote:
|(provider
|independence perhaps)? Please make the distinction for the sake of clarity.
Re-read what I wrote above. Give them globals with the same (or better)
level of stability as their private addresses.
So you are talking about renumbering, provider independence, etc.
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since we have established that site-locals will encourage the use of NATs
('cause that's how it's done today)
I really struggle to see why people would use an
IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT -- there just doesn't seem to be
any incentive.
If you wanted to deploy a NAT, surely
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> This doesn't resolve the problem of ambiguous subnet prefixes
> when routing domains merge. So it doesn't go far enough IMHO.
That's because dealing with uniqueness and merging is a deployment issue,
not an architectural issue. The proposal specifies what the routing
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 06:16:45PM +1000, Andrew White wrote:
> Let's ask a different question. Would the following be acceptable:
I like the direction Andrew is taking, but how about an alternative
set of rules which will cope with multiple scopes a bit better.
The precise meaning of 'scope' h
Hi Bert,
It seems that these sections are duplicates:
6. Intellectual Property Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
Margaret,
I am not trying to twist words, I am reflecting what I hear as it
applies to the reality of the deployed network. Our primary disagreement
is over process. Forgive me but I can't figure out the technical
differences that exist, because at this point it is not clear to me what
you believe
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 06:16:45PM +1000, Andrew White wrote:
> > Let's ask a different question. Would the following be acceptable:
>
>
> I like the direction Andrew is taking, but how about an alternative
> set of rules which will cope with multiple scopes a bit better.
> The precise meani
12 matches
Mail list logo
