On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 10:17, Pekka Savola wrote:
Real example: My ISP's DSL connection decides to drop the connection and
reconnect (with a new IPv4 address, and thus 6to4 prefix) every 1-3 hours.
I'd rather not subject my internal network to that if I don't have to.
Switch ISP or
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 20:06, Bob Hinden wrote:
I would like to hear from the working group on how we should proceed. I
think the choices are:
I'd like to see A happen. Going for B, and even worse C, will just
prolong the current state of uncertainty where a lot of people have
heard that
YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 10:32, Pekka Savola wrote:
This is a very problematic approach IMO.
Need more resiliency? Network outages unacceptable?
The right place to fix this is the network service provider, period.
Nothing else seems like a scalable approach.
In a perfect world I'm sure
