The few self-described apps people I've seen take
a stand have to my recollection been strongly
against dealing with locally scoped addresses .
Have I missed anybody? It seems to me that people
with strong app and/or host kernel background
ought to be given a disproportionate voice i
Leif Johansson wrote:
> Yet another old argument. I remember several opposing voices
> from the SL
> debate.
Appearing to be primarily from service providers. By my count most of the no
voters were from edge focused people.
> I am running a large edge network. I have both PI and PA v4 and yet
Tony Hain wrote:
Leif Johansson wrote:
Of course we filter -
What is your requirement to do that? I am serious, because those are the
things the current draft is trying to document. If it is not covered by the
current text, please send details.
There are obvious reasons for filtering a
On fredag, aug 8, 2003, at 02:51 Europe/Stockholm, Michael Mielke wrote:
Is this telling us, that IPv6 is being introduced in more than just the
internet. like a replacement to phone numbers, for example.
No, see RFC 2916.
Telephone numbers as in E.164 is acting at a completely different layer
Citerat från Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So the fact that someone uses filtering does not necessarily
> > imply that they have a need for addresses that inherently
> > have limited range.
> Technically they could (A) go to a border router and block the
> light-switch
> port, then figure
Michel,
I was referring to the smaller devices a'la Linksys, DNET, etc. With
ciscos you pretty much run sed on the header if you want to- not that I
think it's a good idea.
Eliot
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Hom
Tony Hain wrote:
They do have a disproportionate voice, primarily because the operator of the
edge network (where these addresses would be used) is disenfranchised from
the IETF. Yes the ox of the app developer is being gored here, but the
alternative to a few in the middle is goring the masses at
Citerat från Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, I am using a well established construct of limiting access by
> restricting where prefixes get routed, and limiting access by filtering
> on
> header bit patterns. That is not overloading on the IP address any more
> than
> current practice does.
Christian Huitema writes:
> > The few self-described apps people I've seen take
> > a stand have to my recollection been strongly
> > against dealing with locally scoped addresses .
>
> Let's be clear. Our group (Windows Networking) has received a
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> At 10:26 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> > > Right now I cannot find a single application where locally scoped
> > > addresses give me anything worth the effort. Those are my
> 5 cents -
> > > since you asked for
> > > details :-)
> >
> >Wait, you started off by
Eliot,
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> I was referring to the smaller devices a'la Linksys,
> DNET, etc.
The first part of my post also did. When you scratch the surface it
works on an IP address basis, the rest is GUI paint to make it easy on
Joe.
> With ciscos you pretty much run sed on the header
> if
Pekka Savola wrote:
> So, what exactly is wrong with the Bellovin/Zill Router
> Advertisement option proposals which make it very easy for
> normally local-only appliances to restrict the nodes they
> allow access from?
For the function it performs, nothing. What it lacks is a prefix space to
a
Keith Moore wrote:
there is no justification for the idea that internal-use applications have a
greater need for stability than other applications.
actually, it's not clear that there is a significant class of inherently
"internal-use applications". for most things that people put into that
categ
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You are assuming that there is only one boundary in that
> > consumers house.
> No, I am assuming there is at least one boundry between the consumer and
> other networks.
> > I can
> > assure you that the teenage daugther or so
> Renumbering host interfaces is easier, but there is a lot more involved in a
> renumbering scenario. While it arguably viable to renumber external prefixes
> using the RA overlap technique, that is not sufficiently stable for
> internal-use applications.
there is no justification for the idea t
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
> I fail to see why you need scoped addresses for this.
> When I want my printer to stay off the net, I remove
> the default route. Done.
This does not work because Joe Six-Pack does not know how to remove the
default route, so the printer will indeed acquire a default gatewa
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 06:36:15PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > Mans Nilsson wrote:
> > I fail to see why you need scoped addresses for this.
> > When I want my printer to stay off the net, I remove
> > the default route. Done.
>
> This does not work because Joe Six-Pack does not know how to remove
Briefly (as I am short for time today):
Tony Hain wrote:
Yes, I wonder whether this could be
sufficiently handled by minimum length leases that are retained for
orders of months.
This is a business model issue and out of scope.
BCPs cover business model, but before we argue whether it's a busi
Eliot Lear wrote:
> ...
> No, I think that given today's technology I
> believe we need
> stable addresses so that lack of connectivity does not cause internal
> transport connections to fail.
?!?
> Yes, I wonder whether this could be
> sufficiently handled by minimum length leases that a
Andrew White wrote:
Leif Johansson wrote:
Great. Come back with an ID and running code. This increasingly
hypothetical thread is fast approaching amateur night in layer 7.
3 hours programming and 200 lines of Java later I have a simplistic but
working library that attempts multiple (in fac
Tim,
> Tim Chown wrote:
> I like the method Alcatel use on my combined 802.11/DSL
> home router. If I want to add a new wireless device for
> home access, rather than having anything able to
> associate, or a manual/web configuration of MAC address,
> I only need press an "allow association" butt
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please describe for me what consumer networks (a home connection
> to an ADSL provider for example) that have dynamic routing with
> their service providers?
Mine, for example. I have a residential SBC aDSL line, single static IP,
256kbit up / 1mbit down for $49/mo whi
Tony Hain wrote:
Assuming 'inherently' means 'well-known', yes it is true that manually
configured filtering does not *require* a well-known prefix. It is also true
that automation is required for consumers. Just because it is possible to do
manual filtering doesn't invalidate the requirement for a
>> Let's be clear. Our group (Windows Networking) has received a lot
>> of feedback from developers of applications on the Windows
>> platform. The negative developers' feedback was mostly centered on the
>> difficulty of identifying the scope of an address, specially when a
>> node is connected t
> > Since IPv6 prefixes are going to be mapped along the same
> > boundaries as IPv4 prefixes ie., layer 2 broadcast domains,
> > IPv6 route filtering in an government network will be just as
> > dull a tool as it is in IPv4.
>
> This shows IPv4 thinking, where the network has a single prefix
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 10:26 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> Right now I cannot find a single application where locally scoped
> addresses give
> me anything worth the effort. Those are my 5 cents - since
> you asked for
> details :-)
Wait, you started off by saying that you really ne
> The few self-described apps people I've seen take
> a stand have to my recollection been strongly
> against dealing with locally scoped addresses .
Let's be clear. Our group (Windows Networking) has received a lot of feedback from
developers of applications on the Wi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You are assuming that there is only one boundary in that
> consumers house.
No, I am assuming there is at least one boundry between the consumer and
other networks.
> I can
> assure you that the teenage daugther or son in that house will have a
> completely differe
On 11 Aug 2003 at 22:03, Tony Hain wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Why exactly is advertising the aggregate a problem? The
> > nodes will filter
> > out those sources they are auto-configured not to speak to
> > before even
> > seeing any maliscious packets.
>
> You clearly trust your filte
> (1) If there are multiple addresses per node, then the application
> needs to somehow iterate through the various src/dest combos until it
> finds one that works. If multiple ones would work, how does it choose
> the best combo?
iteration is often too slow, especially if there are lots of addre
Eliot Lear wrote:
> ...
> >>>Failing such, we seem to have limited
> >>>range addressing
> >>>and "graceful" renumbering as alternative options. Perhaps
> >>
> >>there are
> >>
> >>>others also?
> >>
> >>Yes: a default address, which is different from a limited
> >>range address. The default addres
Eliot,
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> If you look at most of the home "routers", they have more
> of a notion of "inside" and "outside" interfaces.
> Even the HOME router doesn't build an assumption along
> the lines you are discussing. It doesn't look at the
> bits in the address field, other than to NAT
Tony Hain wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
Like it or not, it is accepted
security practice to limit access by filtering on bits in the IP
header, and restricting what prefixes are announced in routing
protocols.
But that filtering is done EXPLICITLY based on a PARTICULAR
device in a
PARTICULAR envir
Unless I'm missing something, the 'apps' problem can be neatly divided into
two issues:
(1) If there are multiple addresses per node, then the application needs to
somehow iterate through the various src/dest combos until it finds one that
works. If multiple ones would work, how does it choose th
Citerat från Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Among who? You continue to talk about consumers and how
> > things would be easier for them with site-locals. No
> > consumers are using route filtering today. No consumers
> > will need to use route filtering.
>
> On wh
Michael Thomas wrote:
The few self-described apps people I've seen take
a stand have to my recollection been strongly
against dealing with locally scoped addresses .
Have I missed anybody? It seems to me that people
That depends on whom you caught :-) I suspect lots of apps-folk
have tune
Keith Moore wrote:
> there is no justification for the idea that internal-use
> applications have a greater need for stability than other
> applications.
Not in an academic environment, but when people's jobs are on the line they
tend to set the bar *much* higher. One example of an app that requ
Hi Tony,
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:43:58 -0700
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> > True, but in my experience in a large, multi-departmental
> > govenment network, is it fairly common that end user security
> > / access requirements don't fall neatly along route / prefix
Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Like it or not, it is accepted
> > security practice to limit access by filtering on bits in the IP
> > header, and restricting what prefixes are announced in routing
> > protocols.
>
> But that filtering is done EXPLICITLY based on a PARTICULAR
> device in a
> PARTICULAR
Tony Hain wrote:
For you as a technically astute network admin, I would agree. For
Joe-sixpack who just wants to keep the neighbor kid from messing with his
light switches, or to keep the junk-fax marketing company from finding his
printer, it is a different story.
That is a matter of configur
Leif Johansson wrote:
> Tony Hain wrote:
>
> >Leif Johansson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Of course we filter -
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What is your requirement to do that? I am serious, because those are
> >the things the current draft is trying to document. If it is not
> >covered by the current text, pl
Alain Durand wrote:
>
> Anyway, my point is that if this trial/error process of walking through
> the list of possible destination before finding a correct one can be
> extremely time consuming. So, if the "routing view" of the world
> is not in sync with the "DNS view" of the world, unacceptable
> > > This shows IPv4 thinking, where the network has a single
> > > prefix / L2.
> > > While I agree the initial deployments will likely mirror the IPv4
> > > network, there is no reason to preclude having additional
> > > prefixes / L2, where the reachability characteristics are different.
>
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:25:56AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> Let's be clear. Our group (Windows Networking) has received a lot of feedback from
> developers of applications on the Windows platform. The negative developers'
> feedback was mostly centered on the difficulty of identifying
Citerat från Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Please describe for me what consumer networks (a home connection
> > to an ADSL provider for example) that have dynamic routing with
> > their service providers?
>
> Mine, for example. I have a residential SBC aDSL line,
> No, I am using a well established construct of limiting access by
> restricting where prefixes get routed, and limiting access by
> filtering on header bit patterns. That is not overloading on the IP
> address any more than current practice does.
lots of stupid things are current practice. NAT
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
[...]
> Light switches, file mounts, printers, etc. should not by default be
> globally exposed. If someone chooses to change the configuration, fine, but
> forcing the 'managed enterprise network' model on the consumer will not
> work.
So, what exactly is wron
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Among who? You continue to talk about consumers and how
> things would be easier for them with site-locals. No
> consumers are using route filtering today. No consumers
> will need to use route filtering.
On which planet are you living? I have seen hundreds of consumer
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> The question isn't whether you *can* do it but whether
> it's a good and scalable approach. There was code
> *before* this debate started.
Indeed. And people were deploying before this debate started as well.
Michel.
---
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:03:36 -0700
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Why exactly is advertising the aggregate a problem? The
> > nodes will filter
> > out those sources they are auto-configured not to speak to
> > before even
> > seeing any maliscious packets.
>
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > So, what exactly is wrong with the Bellovin/Zill Router
> > Advertisement option proposals which make it very easy for
> > normally local-only appliances to restrict the nodes they
> > allow access from?
>
> For the function it perf
Keith Moore wrote:
multi-homed sites - this is being worked on by another group. granted
it is a difficult problem.
And, what are the solutions being proposed by that "other" group? (Don't
worry; I know about multi6.) Is it HIP? Is it globally-routable PI? Is it
something else?
As they say at Pac
Keith Moore wrote:
> > > Since IPv6 prefixes are going to be mapped along the same
> > > boundaries as IPv4 prefixes ie., layer 2 broadcast domains,
> > > IPv6 route filtering in an government network will be just as
> > > dull a tool as it is in IPv4.
> >
> > This shows IPv4 thinking, where th
Leif Johansson wrote:
>
> Great. Come back with an ID and running code. This increasingly
> hypothetical thread is fast approaching amateur night in layer 7.
3 hours programming and 200 lines of Java later I have a simplistic but
working library that attempts multiple (in fact all applicable) sou
Michael Thomas wrote:
> The few self-described apps people I've seen take
> a stand have to my recollection been strongly
> against dealing with locally scoped addresses .
>
> Have I missed anybody? It seems to me that people
> with strong app and/or host kernel backgroun
Tony Hain wrote:
I don't see any content in this message.
I'll deal with this elsewhere.
Like it or not, it is accepted
security practice to limit access by filtering on bits in the IP header, and
restricting what prefixes are announced in routing protocols.
But that filtering is done EXPLICITLY
I would think long and hard before I would mandate that my upstream ISP can
renumber me as a customer `at a whim'. This screams `DOS' and `exploit haven'.
--
Todd Fries .. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Daemon Consulting, LLCLand: 405-748-4596
http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com
Leif Johansson wrote:
> Of course we filter -
What is your requirement to do that? I am serious, because those are the
things the current draft is trying to document. If it is not covered by the
current text, please send details.
> but we don't NAT!
I never said NAT was a good thing, in fact I
Subject: RE: apps people? Date: Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:27:50PM -0700 Quoting Tony
Hain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Who said I was forcing the end user behind a NAT, though I agree it creates
> a single point of failure. There appears to be a lot of IPv4-centric
> single-address-per-interface
Eliot,
Eliot Lear wrote:
I am not mandating any such thing. I am saying that you are
architecting toward a solution that is best solved elsewhere. AND
what we have works without such constructs - with two notable exceptions:
We do need to handle the disconnected and intermittenly connected
There is one point you're missing.
When an apps cycle through the list of potential src/dst addresses,
it does not fail over from one to the other immediately, especially
when the destination is remote and ICMP unreachable message may or may
not
be received. TCP time out kicks in and RFC1123 says
> Mark Smith wrote:
> The security paranoid, at least in an government environment,
> would *like* to perform route filtering as part of a defense
> in depth strategy in addition to filtering, but end-user
> access requirements usually put an end to that idea.
All government networks that I have w
Keith,
Quick question - you have been nay-saying on local-use addressing for
as long as I can recall, but do you truly have an alternate proposal that
will work for intermittently-connected/disconnected sites, sites that
frequently change provider points of attachment, multi-homed sites,
etc? I as
Mark Smith wrote:
> ...
> > So is this a statement that the approach is not useful in
> government
> > networks, or a statement that the tool is inadequate
> because it does
> > not solve the government network problems?
> >
>
> I think it is inadequate, because it doesn't provide the
> reso
Mans Nilsson wrote:
> By forcing the end user to NAT and hide things behind a
> "broadband router"
> or similar device, you now give the attacker one convenient weak spot
> which, once attacked and brought to its knees, will deny
> every node in the
> house network service, especially since th
Citerat från Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > This does not work because Joe Six-Pack does not know how to remove
> the
> > default route, so the printer will indeed acquire a default gateway
> by
> > DHCP or RA. Not good enough.
>
> Some vendors have thought a bit about Joe Sixpack and securit
On fredag, aug 8, 2003, at 02:27 Europe/Stockholm, Tony Hain wrote:
Light switches, file mounts, printers, etc. should not by default be
globally exposed. If someone chooses to change the configuration,
fine, but
forcing the 'managed enterprise network' model on the consumer will not
work.
Whethe
Tony Hain wrote:
Uselessly slow is a local decision. If that is the case for your network,
then by all means, don't use these addresses. For others, speed is less of a
concern than other attributes. Please stop trying to force a single
operational model on everyone. We need to provide tools that m
Mark Smith wrote:
> True, but in my experience in a large, multi-departmental
> govenment network, is it fairly common that end user security
> / access requirements don't fall neatly along route / prefix
> boundaries. Typically this is because security has crept into
> the network, triggered b
> >multi-homed sites - this is being worked on by another group.
> >granted it is a difficult problem.
> >
> And, what are the solutions being proposed by that "other" group?
> (Don't worry; I know about multi6.) Is it HIP? Is it globally-routable
> PI? Is it something else?
I'm not caught up wit
Subject: RE: apps people? Date: Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:05:08PM -0700 Quoting Tony
Hain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt creates unique addresses, even in
> the case where the teenagers have independent boundary routers. Global
> access is not
> * To some degree this is the deployment model. Not to explicitly
> allocate an address to an individual app, but to allocate addresses
> with the characteristics of 'local use' and 'global use', then have
> the apps bind to the appropriate one.
This is not an appropriate model. It doesn't actu
Pekka Savola wrote:
> Why exactly is advertising the aggregate a problem? The
> nodes will filter
> out those sources they are auto-configured not to speak to
> before even
> seeing any maliscious packets.
You clearly trust your filter configuration manager. Not everyone does, and
there is am
> Uselessly slow is a local decision. If that is the case for your network,
> then by all means, don't use these addresses. For others, speed is less of a
> concern than other attributes. Please stop trying to force a single
> operational model on everyone. We need to provide tools that meet the
>
> Quick question - you have been nay-saying on local-use addressing for
> as long as I can recall, but do you truly have an alternate proposal
> that will work for intermittently-connected/disconnected sites,
disconnected sites - should use some sort of PI space - either
globally-unique or probab
Leif Johansson wrote:
> Listen Andrew, I am sort of impressed by your tennacity (if
> that is the
> word I
> am looking for) but writing a loop through a table does not quite
> constitute
> "running code". You actually need to use this in an application and
> demonstrate
> its utility on the In
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:39:59 -0700
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> > ...
> > > So is this a statement that the approach is not useful in
> > government
> > > networks, or a statement that the tool is inadequate
> > because it does
> > > not solve the government net
Fred Templin wrote:
In the interest of not seeing this swept under the rug as you say, let's
discuss
the disconnected/intermittently-connected network case. We require stable
addressing for apps within such networks independent of what may be going
on with the provider point(s) of attachment. This
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:41:55AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
>
> A little reckless IMHO, if your neighbor's wireless is up there is a
> strong risk of allowing association.
It was just an example. In practice most UK home WLAN APs run at about 30mW
which won't break out to neighbours. Max power i
> Would you say that your network is a typical representation of
> a future Joe Six- Pack network with IPv6? With the eBGP peers
> and all?
A little overkill for Joe Six-Pack, but the eBGP peering is already
available for free from several providers, I don't see why it would
change for power users
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Tony Hain wrote:
> > Assuming 'inherently' means 'well-known', yes it is true
> that manually
> > configured filtering does not *require* a well-known prefix. It is
> > also true that automation is required for consumers. Just
> because it
> > is possible to do manual filte
Andrew White wrote:
A fair comment.
Some workarounds (of varying levels of reasonableness):
Great. Come back with an ID and running code. This increasingly
hypothetical
thread is fast approaching amateur night in layer 7.
Cheers Leif
-
Andrew White wrote:
This discussion is increasingly degenerating into people who say "I refuse
to believe it would ever work or why someone would want to do it" and those
who can point to working deployment scenarios.
The question isn't whether you *can* do it but whether it's a good and
scalable
alf Of Andrew White
> Sent: Wednesday, 06 August, 2003 18:31
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: apps people?
>
>
> Unless I'm missing something, the 'apps' problem can be
> neatly divided into two issues:
>
> (1) If there are multiple addresses per node,
At 10:26 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> Right now I cannot find a single application where locally scoped
> addresses give
> me anything worth the effort. Those are my 5 cents - since
> you asked for
> details :-)
Wait, you started off by saying that you really need to filter and keep some
a
Tony Hain wrote:
So is all of your space is globally routed without any filtering or
exclusion from routing protocols? Not everyone is in such a lucky position
to have all of their network globally exposed.
Of course we filter - but we don't NAT! And luck has nothing to do with
it. Would
I lik
Fred,
multi-homed sites - this is being worked on by another group. granted
it is a difficult problem.
And, what are the solutions being proposed by that "other" group?
(Don't
worry; I know about multi6.) Is it HIP? Is it globally-routable PI? Is
it
something else?
As they say at PacBell Pa
Fred,
Fred Templin wrote:
... but do you truly have an alternate proposal that
will work for intermittently-connected/disconnected sites, sites that
frequently change provider points of attachment, multi-homed sites,
etc? I asked others the same question and they mumbled something
about HIP but d
Fred,
Fred Templin wrote:
There was a HIP mailing list for a long time @lists.freeswan.org.
Yes, I'm subscribed to that list - since 7/16/2002, actually. There was
a pretty healthy amount of traffic between 3/14/03 - 3/26/03 and then
it went silent.
I guess the list crashed at 3/26/03, short shor
Pekka Nikander wrote
There was a HIP mailing list for a long time @lists.freeswan.org.
However, due to hardware problems the list crashed three times during
the last year or so, losing its membership at least once, and the
archive at least once, too. (I don't remember the details).
Yes, I'm subs
> > there is no justification for the idea that internal-use
> > applications have a greater need for stability than other
> > applications.
>
> Not in an academic environment, but when people's jobs are on the line they
> tend to set the bar *much* higher.
(Should I counter with a comment abo
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: local vs. nonlocal address stability ( was Re:
> apps people? )
>
>
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > ...
> > I think the requirement is better stated that apps (not just
> > local apps)
Tony Hain wrote:
You won't even accept my agreement that academic networks have a 'lack of
need' in the same class as those with $M's at stake.
You should spend some time in the academic world. In most countries the
academic institutions are essentially companies offering education and
research
Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> I think the requirement is better stated that apps (not just
> local apps) continue to operate independent of any normal
> address change events, whether or not at the SP edge.
Nice goal, but requires changes to transport to pull it off. The point is to
deliver service
> > I think the requirement is better stated that apps (not just
> > local apps) continue to operate independent of any normal
> > address change events, whether or not at the SP edge.
>
> Nice goal, but requires changes to transport to pull it off. The point is to
> deliver service long before
> > > Not in an academic environment, but when people's jobs are
> > > on the line they tend to set the bar *much* higher.
> >
> > (Should I counter with a comment about vendors that try to
> > get their customers to invest in shortsighted and inflexible
> > solutions?)
>
> You won't even acc
> Jim Bound wrote:
> Putting on deployment hat and all this discussion from
> the most knowledgeable people on this issue here SLs must
> die and new pheonix is required.
Easier said than done.
> But to tell a customer to use these is not honorable at
> this point. My input now as individual pers
Keith Moore wrote:
> > > there is no justification for the idea that internal-use
> > > applications have a greater need for stability than other
> > > applications.
> >
> > Not in an academic environment, but when people's jobs are
> on the line
> > they tend to set the bar *much* higher.
>
>
Leif Johansson wrote:
> You should spend some time in the academic world. In most
> countries the academic institutions are essentially companies
> offering education and research on a competitive market.
> There is not inherent difference and real money is just as
> much at stake.
I have been
Keith Moore wrote:
> Anything that involves ambiguous addresses will cause problems.
Please read
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-00.
txt and note there is no requirement for ambiguous addresses. Please read
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hinden-
100 matches
Mail list logo
