I'm not sure we want to throw out the idea of 'scope'. Even without SL, two
scopes are architecturally enshrined in IPv6, link-local (addresses are
valid and unique only on-link) and global (addresses are globally unique).
You'll notice that I don't say addresses are globally valid. Architectura
> Clearly many users care a lot about the isolation and little about the
> functionality that you believe is being limited. Rather than trying to
> convince them that they are wrong for wanting to keep their networks
> running, how about proposing a way to achieve that isolation without
> limiting
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> |NAT isolates customer networks from upstream address policies
> only by severely
> |limiting their functionality.
>
> ... do you really think it is reasonable to
> demand that everyone give up what they need to have what you thin
Forwarding this announcement to the most relevant WG's...
RFC 2667, entitled "IP Tunnel MIB", only supported
point-to-point tunnels over IPv4. This draft updates
RFC 2667 to also support tunnels over IPv6, as well as
tunnels which aren't just point-to-point (e.g. 6to4).
It also clarifies the u
Hi Pete,
The deprecation document only applies to site-local unicast
addresses. I pointed out in SF that we still have to deal with the
scoped multicast addresses. That is one of the goals of the modified
Scoped Addressing Architecture document.
There has been some discussion on the ipv
Hi,
Question: How does the deprecation of site-local unicast addresses (as
defined in RFC 3513 Section 2.5.6) impact/affect site-local multicast
addresses (as defined in RFC 3513 Section 2.7)? For example, setting the
4-bit "scop" field to a value = 5 limits the scope of a multicast group
to "site
On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|
| [aggregated mail :)]
|
| Mohsen Souissi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| > On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
|
|
| > | Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very public.
| >
| > ==> AFNIC (French R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On onsdag, okt 15, 2003, at 17:34 Europe/Stockholm, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>
>> % Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very
>> public.
>> % We have www.rs.net providing this for some time, but unfortunatly
>> % it has some issue
In my opinion, I don't see a problem with this thread. I believe it
is useful to see how v6 is being deployed or reasons why it is not
being deployed.
So, as long as it remains civil and doesn't degrade into a re-hash
of past arguments, I don't see a problem with it continuing.
Regards,
Brian
Boun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Bill Manning wrote:
> % > is currently impossible to resolve DNS names over IPv6 transport,
> % > because the roots don't support IPv6 transport, none of the
> % > major gTLDs supports IPv6 transport and very few, if any, TLDs
> % > support IPv6 glue records f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[aggregated mail :)]
Mohsen Souissi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> | Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very public.
>
> ==> AFNIC (French Registry) has been running an official IPv6-capable
> nam
It is not an IETF task or in the charter and it is being done elsewhere. This is not
even a technical discussion IMO.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Strauf (JOIN) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:14 AM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: Michel Py; Mark S
Question to Chairs:
This appears to be a marketing discussion for IPv6 deployment? I personally think it
is useful. But do the chairs want this thread to continue. Reason, if it is to
continue then additional input to response below would be actual deployment in process
that is not waiting o
Dear Mr Py,
Sorry, could you run that past me one more time ..?
J
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> 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
On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[...]
|
| > That's all protocol stuff. Hopefully all of
| > this can be fixed in the not too distant future. But there there is
| > another extremely important issue that (in my not so humble opinion)
| > must absolutely be fixed before making any such statement:
% > is currently impossible to resolve DNS names over IPv6 transport,
% > because the roots don't support IPv6 transport, none of the
% > major gTLDs supports IPv6 transport and very few, if any, TLDs
% > support IPv6 glue records for delegated domains.
%
% Apparently there is work being done on
> Client access and for some also hosting is taken care of by
> using tunnelbrokers and other transition mechanisms. ISP's
> should start enabling IPv6 on their native networks where
> possible and start providing servers with IPv6 connectivity.
> Then it is at least possible for clients to use it.
--On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 14:55:58 +0300 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Failed to produce a multihoming solution for smaller enterprises which
> would not need an AS number otherwise, but whose about only (clear) option
> is to go and get an AS number for their site multihoming
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Måns Nilsson wrote:
[...]
> > There are now less than 35000 free AS numbers. If such a policy would be
> > adopted there would be a huge land rush, depleting the AS number supply
> > and forever polluting the IPv6 routing table with 64000 or so routes,
> > most of which don't n
--On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:10:39 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A very good property of IPv6 is that we get to avoid some of the mistakes
> that were made with IPv4. One of those mistakes was giving out addresses
> in ways that didn't scale. History teaches us t
On 14 okt 2003, at 19:52, Fred Baker wrote:
IPv4 address exhaustion will never occur.
Yes, it would be interesting to see the justification needed in order
to be assigned the last remaining IPv4 address. :-)
And obviously at some point people are going to stop throwing around
subnets but tunne
On 14 okt 2003, at 17:32, Mans Nilsson wrote:
b) Is IPv6 good enough yet ?
I think so. There are valid concerns on two things; multihoming and
address allocation procedures. There seems to be strong forces among
the
researchers and vendors advocting that we halt and wait for the
Grail of multiho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 14 okt 2003, at 16:13, 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 i
On 14 okt 2003, at 16:13, 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 (+ N
Dear IPv6 group,
A while ago there was some discussion about Neighbor Discovery Update. Greg Daley
and I collected the RA issues for Movement Detection/ Detection of Network Attachment
in a draft:
Router Advertisement Issues for Movement Detection/ Detection of Network Attachment
This draft
> Christian Strauf wrote:
> it will be difficult to convince sales people that there actually
> is something about IPv6 that can be sold as a feature that makes
> it better than IPv4 (if we leave aside IPv4 address exhaustion
> for the moment).
I'm not so sure that's were the problem really is. Sa
26 matches
Mail list logo
