On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
The same people are also trying to understand why a number of
applications doesn't work in their network and how come that trojan
send their password file to a unknown destination. Private addresses
comes at a cost that is becoming more and
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
The same people are also trying to understand why a number of
applications doesn't work in their network and how come that trojan
send their password file to a unknown destination. Private addresses
comes at a cost that is becoming more
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You are avoiding the fact that 'organizations' (the people getting
/48's)
get that /48 out of a /32 from their upstream and that the routing
table _should_ be filtered on those boundaries
And how many /48s are in /32 ?
Maybe you could take a look
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quality Quorum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You are avoiding the fact that 'organizations' (the people getting
/48's)
get that /48 out of a /32
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
After the today's decision with site local, is clear to me that we don't
want to have NAT happening again ;-)
We know that the people will do it anyway, but we must do an effort
to avoid is as much as possible, and some ideas that could
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Aleksey wrote:
BTW, I prepared a draft which spells out NAT6
If you're tired of life, there probably are better ways to go than being
lynched by a crowd of IETFers.
Ever heard about SNMP wars? I highly doubt that by now there is so much
fire left
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Quality Quorum wrote:
The problem here is software implementation of longest prefix match.
Up to this point it was limited to a few TLAs with 48 bits which was
quite doable in software, this draft expands it to 61
Note
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I suppose 125-bit LPM will significantly slow down acceptance of ipv6.
I suppose that v6 will benefit from administrative steps setting
limits on LPM, at least for transitional period.
I'd agree, that is why the /64 boundary is so
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Bob Hinden Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The IPv6 working group has two session at the San Francisco IETF
meeting. They are:
MONDAY, March 17, 2003, 1930-2200
THURSDAY, March 20, 2003, 0900-1130
There are several important topics to which we will devote
One substantial point I'd like to see more discussion on is whether folks
feel that Address Format section, mainly restating what addr-arch-v3-11
says on 64 bit IID's, seems like the right thing to do in this document?
I think this point was brought up by at least Thomas Narten and others,
Quality Quorum wrote:
...
...The thing which is doable is to assign moveable transport-bound
addresses + independent non-globally-visible and non-globally unique
permanent local addresses + NAT, with DNS names being the only fixed
points in this permanently shifting environment.
As I
11 matches
Mail list logo
