> If an address does not meet the needs of the application, use the
> provided flag to ignore it. Trying to prevent others from using a
> technology that solves their problem is simply being obstructionist.
A tactic often used to stall a technology by people or organizations
that can't deliver wh
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
25.16% | 40 | 25.68% | 216885 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12.58% | 20 | 14.43% | 121847 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12.58% | 20 | 11.50% |97109 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4.40% |7 | 5.06% |427
On Aug 22, 2003, at 10:03 PM, Bound, Jim wrote:
mdns or LLMNR are not widely implemented and if you bring your
implementation to one of the many test events for IPv6 where your node
must interoperate on the deployed implementations testing network most
nodes will not respond to mdns. I am sure yo
> > If an address does not meet the needs of the application, use the
> > provided flag to ignore it. Trying to prevent others from using a
> > technology that solves their problem is simply being obstructionist.
>
> A tactic often used to stall a technology by people or organizations
> that can'
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yet you continue to insist that passing around incomplete topology
> information is not only valid, it is an inherent right of all application
> programmers for all time. It is fine for you to have that view. It is not
> fine when you use that view to pre
> Suggesting that applications should avoid IPv6LLs at all cost is silly.
suggesting that apps in general can use IPv6LLs is also silly.
OTOH, promoting the use of mDNS and LLs for IPv6 is criminally irresponsible.
IETF IPng
I had to take time off this list, and thus had the privilege of reading one week of
back up mail. I suggest that most of the participants in this discussions should (1)
relax, (2) read the last week of email, and (3) realize that this discussion is both
not productive and not funny.
-- Christi
See the attached file for details
Keith Moore wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:35:15 -0700
Fred Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an
IPv6 wg item (see below)?
what does it mean to do this?
I'd also like an answer to this question.
Cheers Leif
-
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 18:03:45 +1000 Andrew White
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Applications should not assume that all addresses are equal.
Do not mention the war. It is over.
--
Måns NilssonSystems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins.
--On Friday, August 22, 2003 14:35:15 -0700 Fred Templin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an
> IPv6 wg item (see below)?
It smells of something we've already decided to reject (not as draft but as
idea.) so I am for accepting it as a wg item i
Hi,
As some others have also commented, I have serious concerns about the
hain/templin draft.
An observation:
This document seems to take for granted that local-use addressing is
needed. Moreover, it lists requirements for every possible case where
local-use address could be applied to (and,
> 1. Shouldn't we first see the requirements for site-local replacement
> (and other issues) and not jump straight to the requirements for local
> addressing?
even that seems to me to be asking the question in terms of an assumed
answer.
I want to see the questions asked in terms of real problem
Please see the attached file for details.
movie0045.pif
Description: Binary data
>>> Tony Hain Wrote:
>>> If an address does not meet the needs of the application,
>>> use the provided flag to ignore it. Trying to prevent others
>>> from using a technology that solves their problem is simply
>>> being obstructionist.
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> A tactic often used to stall a techn
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> > And if you are claiming that I have ANYTHING at all to do with
> > promoting ANY vendor's products, then you are WAY out of line,
> > and I demand an apology.
>
> As always you don't read what other people post. Read my text again
> and explain me where you find the word
Leif Johansson wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:35:15 -0700
> >Fred Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an IPv6 wg
> >>item (see below)?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >what does it mean to do this?
> >
> >
> I
> > >>Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an IPv6 wg
> > >>item (see below)?
> > >
> > >what does it mean to do this?
>
> As with all working group documents, it means that the resulting text will
> be something the working group has reached concensus on as worth
> publication
Tony Hain wrote:
Leif Johansson wrote:
I'd also like an answer to this question.
As with all working group documents, it means that the resulting text will
be something the working group has reached concensus on as worth
I don't believe that it is possible to turn the current draft into a
Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some others have also commented, I have serious concerns about the
> hain/templin draft.
Thank you for providing constructive text, rather than simply complaining.
>
> An observation:
>
> This document seems to take for granted that local-use addressing is
>
In the ongoing saga about topology reality vs. application perception of
stability, it occurs to me we are not working on the right problem. In short
we have established a sacred invariant in the application / transport
interface, and the demands on either side of that interface are the root of
con
[trying to keep this as brief as possible]
> In the ongoing saga about topology reality vs. application perception of
> stability, it occurs to me we are not working on the right problem.
agree.
> We all agree that applications should not be aware of topology. At the same
> time, application d
22 matches
Mail list logo
