As I thought I pointed out in a message last night, IPv4 and IPv6
address spaces are different scopes. For a reasonable mainstream
deployment of IPv6 to occur, mainstream applications need to be able to
deal with a mix of IPv4-only, IPv6-only, and dual protocol nodes.
We can't just poke our heads
Tony Hain wrote:
Assuming 'inherently' means 'well-known', yes it is true that manually
configured filtering does not *require* a well-known prefix. It is also true
that automation is required for consumers. Just because it is possible to do
manual filtering doesn't invalidate the requirement for a
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:53:14PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> But I'm sorry, if NAT's become a de-facto
> necessity for v6 native networks (putting aside
> the need for v4/v6 NAT's), then I find the entire
> premise of ipv6's utility deeply undermined. Quite
> possibly fatally.
IPv6 NAT wi
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please describe for me what consumer networks (a home connection
> to an ADSL provider for example) that have dynamic routing with
> their service providers?
Mine, for example. I have a residential SBC aDSL line, single static IP,
256kbit up / 1mbit down for $49/mo whi
> > > Not in an academic environment, but when people's jobs are
> > > on the line they tend to set the bar *much* higher.
> >
> > (Should I counter with a comment about vendors that try to
> > get their customers to invest in shortsighted and inflexible
> > solutions?)
>
> You won't even acc
Tim,
> Tim Chown wrote:
> I like the method Alcatel use on my combined 802.11/DSL
> home router. If I want to add a new wireless device for
> home access, rather than having anything able to
> associate, or a manual/web configuration of MAC address,
> I only need press an "allow association" butt
OK thanks. I believe we have a solution all of us should be able to
live with here in hinden and hain/templin works. If we all really just
make sure they are technically accurate in Aug/Sept have discussion to
move them forward we can wrap them up at Minneapolis (why are we going
to such a cold p
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 15:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > The observation is that even though the /8 space contains
> > 1.1 trillion entries, there is a greater than 0.5 probability that there will
> > be a clash after some 1.2 million draws. Normally this would not matter in the
> > slightest, BUT
> > I think the requirement is better stated that apps (not just
> > local apps) continue to operate independent of any normal
> > address change events, whether or not at the SP edge.
>
> Nice goal, but requires changes to transport to pull it off. The point is to
> deliver service long before
Leif Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently the question about the future and status of site-locals is
> again beeing discussed in the wg despite the fact that consensus was
> achieved in SF and confirmed on the mailing-list.
To be clear, my understanding is:
1) There was clear consen
Mika,
that application seems to scream for "real", i.e. provider-assigned
globally unique addresses -- I don't think this is where limited range
("local") addresses should be used?
--On Thursday, August 07, 2003 20:09 +0300 Mika Liljeberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been working on implem
Mark Smith wrote:
Ok, I think you might have missed the point of my original email, so
I'll try to re-state it :
1) If people have lots of choices, they would rather not make a choice,
particularly when they don't have the knowledge to make a value judgment
as to what the "best" choice is.
In this
Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> I think the requirement is better stated that apps (not just
> local apps) continue to operate independent of any normal
> address change events, whether or not at the SP edge.
Nice goal, but requires changes to transport to pull it off. The point is to
deliver service
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 18:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
but operational experience
> with 10/8 suggests that ambiguity is actually a bigger pain than
> NAT in some scenarios (VPNs between two Net 10 networks, for
> example).
Combining the two is worse ... I spent two months _solid_ working to
"pro
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:52:32PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> No. That would admit the possibility of reusing that prefix for some
> other purpose. What we really need is for all hosts and routers to
> filter FEC0://10 packets unless explicitly configured to do otherwise.
Actually while I ag
Andrew White wrote:
Leif Johansson wrote:
Great. Come back with an ID and running code. This increasingly
hypothetical thread is fast approaching amateur night in layer 7.
3 hours programming and 200 lines of Java later I have a simplistic but
working library that attempts multiple (in fac
Thanks to everyone who has responded with a preference so far. Please keep
them coming.
To make it a little easier to keep track of the results, please only use
the above subject for direct responses. Move discussions to other Subjects.
Thanks,
Bob
Tony Hain wrote:
You won't even accept my agreement that academic networks have a 'lack of
need' in the same class as those with $M's at stake.
You should spend some time in the academic world. In most countries the
academic institutions are essentially companies offering education and
research
Hans Kruse wrote:
> ...
> and in draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.txt
>In the simple case, hosts that are allowed external access have a
>policy that allows them to configure both global and limited range
>prefixes, while those that are not allowed global access have a
>polic
At 10:30 AM 9/08/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
I think we have this known.
1. Consensus is SLs are not going to achieve consensus.
2. hinden draft works IMO?
What don't you like about hinden draft "idea"?
Well - to answer this question of Jims, I'm not sure it (the Hinden/Haberman
draft) is fi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If you think the document has a scoping issue (no pun intended),
> then let's discuss that with a measured tone.
Yes, I think it has scoping issues. A name change,
for starters. It should first lay out requirements
of network operators, etc in terms of what they
need
21 matches
Mail list logo
