> Keith Moore writes:
> > Hitler.
>
> This is pointless.
exactly my point.
Keith
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> Carlos, the question is "where are the cost savings in renumbering an
> IPv6 network as opposed to renumbering an IPv4 network".
>
> Tim
>
> PS. According to dnsop people, everyone will use DHCPv6(!)
Use of DHCPv6 will solve the resolver issue, if its insi
> > I think that we can make rules that say "no NATs in IPv6" and
> > "advertisements of PI prefixes on the public Internet should be
> > filtered" and that those rules will have a useful effect. They
> > might not entirely prevent either practice, but they may make them
> > rare enough that t
Ralph,
Ralph Droms wrote:
Taking Carlos' analysis a step further, there are two kinds of "stuff"
that
has to be fixed during a renumbering event: stuff that can be fixed
automatically (cost essentially independent of network complexity) and
stuff
that has to be fixed manually (cost that scales
s/will prove/might prove.
:-)
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> > Carlos, the question is "where are the cost savings in renumbering an
> > IPv6 network as opposed to renumbering an IPv4 network".
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > PS. According to dnsop
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:37:56 +0100
Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How different is this to the multi-addressing multihoming scenario, which
> Christian Huitema's proposals are attacking? I think this is good work,
> but the brickbats come from those who wish to push/enforce central polic
> Another potential advantage for IPv6 that is a little harder to quantify is
> the notion of "graceful" renumbering - the ability to have a transition
> state in which both the old and new prefixes are in use simultaneously.
the effect of this on renumbering cost is going to be highly site-depend
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:35:57AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Another potential advantage for IPv6 that is a little harder to quantify is
> the notion of "graceful" renumbering - the ability to have a transition
> state in which both the old and new prefixes are in use simultaneously.
> Will this
> In trying to formulate an answer to this it occurs
> to me that there's a better question to ask: if it
> is inevitable that we need PI space for
> disconnected networks, then do you concede that we
> will end up with (a) NAT's and (b) route growth
> (due to advertizing /48's) for people who deci
Keith Moore writes:
> > In trying to formulate an answer to this it occurs
> > to me that there's a better question to ask: if it
> > is inevitable that we need PI space for
> > disconnected networks, then do you concede that we
> > will end up with (a) NAT's and (b) route growth
> > (due to
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:35:57 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Another potential advantage for IPv6 that is a little harder to quantify is
> the notion of "graceful" renumbering - the ability to have a transition
> state in which both the old and new prefixes are in use s
% On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
% [...]
% > PS. According to dnsop people, everyone will use DHCPv6(!)
%
% To be clear, there seems to be a rather large number of people who think
% that DHCPv6 will be used to configure "other" fancy stuff on network (e.g.
% DNS resolver addresses).
%
% I
Subject: Re: inevitability of PI Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:07:53AM +0100 Quoting
Tim Chown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:57:05PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > IPv6 gives users better ways to solve some problems (renumbering,
> > attachment of a
Agreed - there are significant potential savings. Does it work?
- Ralph
At 08:56 AM 8/14/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Another potential advantage for IPv6 that is a little harder to quantify is
> the notion of "graceful" renumbering - the ability to have a transition
> state in which both th
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
[...]
> PS. According to dnsop people, everyone will use DHCPv6(!)
To be clear, there seems to be a rather large number of people who think
that DHCPv6 will be used to configure "other" fancy stuff on network (e.g.
DNS resolver addresses).
I don't think all t
Keith Moore writes:
> Hitler.
This is pointless.
Bye.
Mike
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playgr
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Michael Thomas wrote:
> I've seen nothing which would dissuade me of that
> notion, and plenty of evidence in the here and now
> that that's exactly what will happen. Since IPv6
> does not have an adequate solution for renumbering
> -- and any such solution being the path of l
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:57:05PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > IPv6 gives users better ways to solve some problems (renumbering,
> > attachment of a home network) whereas in IPv4 NATs were the
> > best tools available.
>
> So where are the cost savings
Carlos, the question is "where are the cost savings in renumbering an
IPv6 network as opposed to renumbering an IPv4 network".
Tim
PS. According to dnsop people, everyone will use DHCPv6(!)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:20:07AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
>
Taking Carlos' analysis a step further, there are two kinds of "stuff" that
has to be fixed during a renumbering event: stuff that can be fixed
automatically (cost essentially independent of network complexity) and stuff
that has to be fixed manually (cost that scales with network complexity).
For
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:57:05PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> IPv6 gives users better ways to solve some problems (renumbering,
> attachment of a home network) whereas in IPv4 NATs were the
> best tools available.
So where are the cost savings in renumbering an IPv6 network as opposed to
ren
Mans Nilsson wrote:
Still, I wonder why I'm debating this here. It is v6ops material.
Hmm Yes. One of the ops ADs even spoke up to support Måns in this, which
is a hint as good as any imho. Go request a slot for a renumbering-BOF
at the
next IETF and lets move on.
Cheers Leif
-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leif Johansson
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:44 AM
> To: Mans Nilsson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: inevitability of PI
>
>
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> >
> >Still, I wonder w
For once, Tony and I are in agreement. This has nothing to do with
operations; it has everything to do with the programming model that the v6
Internet supports.
But I'll go even farther. You can improve DNS reliability a bit through
saner operations, but you still can't make DNS good enough to r
Keith Moore wrote:
For once, Tony and I are in agreement. This has nothing to do with
operations; it has everything to do with the programming model that the v6
Internet supports.
I am saving this email :-) Who am I to argue with such overwhelming
opposition.
Cheers Leif
-
Hey, we can legislate whatever...
-- Christian Huitema
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Christian Huitema writes:
> Hey, we can legislate whatever...
I'm legally bound to Godwin's Law.
Mike
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP arch
> I'm legally bound to Godwin's Law.
Godwin may have done us more of a favor than he realized.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:
28 matches
Mail list logo
