On Tuesday 14 October 2003 11:36, Jeroen Massar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
SNIP
Do you know what are the problems that *root zone operators* are
experiencing with RFC 1918 addresses ? It would be very interesting
if you could explain
% We still don't have any IPv6 root nameservers. I gather one of the
% problems here is the limit on response message sizes for DNS queries.
No and Yes. There is an IPv6 native DNS system in place
that supports the root zone and many TLDs. Its not
the production DNS,
The IESG comments on this document are at
https://www.ietf.org/IESG/EVALUATIONS/draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label.bal
It's taken a while for the authors to discover them, but here are our
responses. We'd like the WG's reactions over the next few days, so that
we can update the draft appropriately.
Hi,
A recent discussion came up on the ipv6 mailing list regarding why the market picked
up IPv4 NAT, initially asked by Geoff Huston, and posted to the list by Pekka Savola.
Archives of the discussion are available at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ipngm=106389565013129w=2
and
It also isn't clear how
collisions would be managed (Section 3, third paragraph)
if it were possible
for any multiple applications on the same host to specify
Flow Label values.
We deleted a whole lot of implementation recommendations in
this area, at the
WG's request.
Subject: Will IPv4 be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough ? Date: Tue, Oct
14, 2003 at 11:43:36PM +0930 Quoting Mark Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
That brings to my mind two questions
a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough? If so, are the
related IPv4 NAT
Mark,
Mark Smith wrote:
a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good
enough? If so, are the related IPv4 NAT RFCs also going to be
deprecated at that time ?
IMHO it's not a matter of being good enough, it's a matter of how many
IPv4 hosts are still up. The IETF deprecating
At 07:13 AM 10/14/2003, Mark Smith wrote:
A little later, it occured to me that maybe what the market might be
missing is a statement from the IETF, IESG and/or IAB, that IPv6 is now
*ready*, and can be deployed in production via the available transition
mechanisms, slowly replacing IPv4 (+
My 2 (euro-)cents:
That brings to my mind two questions
a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough?
No.
If so, are the related IPv4 NAT RFCs also going to be deprecated at that
time ?
No.
b) Is IPv6 good enough yet ?
No. Still a lot of work to be done.
Fred,
Fred Baker wrote:
Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market
adoption of IPv6.
IPv4 address exhaustion will never occur. As we approach 100%
allocation (being now a tad over 60% allocation), the level
of administrative pushback on a new allocation requests will
At 10:52 AM 14/10/2003 -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
At 09:48 AM 10/14/2003, Michel Py wrote:
In my wildest dreams, 10 years at least; possibly 20 depending on how
good the projections in terms of IPv4 exhaustion are.
Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market adoption of IPv6.
IPv4
Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|Indeed. The only other factor here is that it is not entirely a clean
|substitution,
|as NATs provide an alternative product which is an imperfect substitution.
|The extent
|to which the market, over the past few years, has tended towards NATs despite
+/v8APAAh-DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC +ACI--//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN+ACIAPg-
+ADw-HTML+AD4APA-HEAD+AD4-
+ADw-META http-equiv+AD0-Content-Type content+AD0AIg-text/html+ADs- charset+AD0-utf-7+ACIAPg-
+ADw-META content+AD0AIg-MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226+ACI- name+AD0-GENERATOR+AD4-
13 matches
Mail list logo
