-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why do this example give me the feeling that we are arguing over
sacrificing the functionality for the majority for a few special cases.
The real problem is a long-term scalable private address solution.
There are other WG(s) looking at that.
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On torsdag, aug 7, 2003, at 06:25 Europe/Stockholm, Andrew White wrote:
Because (in the current context) there's no such thing? A local
address is
an address that promises to be filtered.
Where? What determines the cope? Configuration? Then
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Why do this example give me the feeling that we are arguing over
sacrificing the functionality for the majority for a few special cases.
It's a special case that potentially includes most home users, SOHO users,
and personal area networks. Surely there won't be
Hi Pekka,
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 17:47, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
Just responding to a few points..
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.
Agree with Tony that Andrew's real-life deployment scenario sequence
(a) thru (h) is of interest for the requirements doc.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tony Hain wrote:
Andrew,
Would you mind if we put this sequence in the requirements doc?
Tony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pekka Savola wrote:
.. but this might be.
Do all (or most) of the ISPs changing the address also provide premium
static IP service?
*Indeed* they do. What is interesting is that some of these premium
services are fabrications, and they end up changing your so-called
static IP address, anyway.
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 Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Aidan Williams wrote:
There is a difference of a couple of degrees of magnitude here. Absolute
yes/no are irrelevant (because there is always some filtering); it's more
important to figure out the probability which results in the highest
percentage of getting it right at
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White 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
At Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:25:18 +1000, Andrew White wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
it's far easier to filter global addresses than to filter local ones.
*boggle* Am I the only one that finds this claim nonsensical?
I wouldn't phrase it as Keith did, but I think that I end up in the
same place:
Tony Hain wrote:
Andrew,
Would you mind if we put this sequence in the requirements doc?
Not at all - my pleasure.
--
Andrew White
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
Just responding to a few points..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
When that 6to4 address goes away, I don't want my persistent sessions
to be forced to maintain a stale address.
Why not? There's no problem with that, really. You
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the long reply; I found it very interesting. A few more
comments in-line..
(hopefully this won't drift too far off-topic..)
On 7 Aug 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 17:47, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
Just responding to a
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the long reply; I found it very interesting.
Thanks for reading it.
A few more
comments in-line..
(hopefully this won't drift too far off-topic..)
Hopefully.
On 7 Aug 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07
Andrew,
Would you mind if we put this sequence in the requirements doc?
Tony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew White
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:55 PM
To: IPng
Subject: Real life scenario - requirements (local
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
It's whether an application can assume that global addresses are never
filtered, and the answer is that it can't. Ergo, global addresses are
also scoped addresses.
There is a difference of a couple of degrees of magnitude here.
Pekka Savola wrote:
Just responding to a few points..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Andrew White wrote:
When that 6to4 address goes away, I don't want my persistent sessions
to be forced to maintain a stale address.
Why not? There's no problem with that, really. You can continue using
bogus
17 matches
Mail list logo
