Sorry for posting this comment, I saw the IPv6 Chairs' mail too late.
Christian
--
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Strauf
A DFN project Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Team: [EMAIL PROTECTED
> But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to some user
> behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server, how does v4 deliver,
> without the receiving user having the pain of port forwarding configuration
> on their NAT?
Good point. I experienced that end-users in the Gn
Umm, since folks have decided to perpetuate this thread, I think I'm entitled
to the following disclaimer. Let's see if I can make this sound all legal. :)
My lack of response--in compliance with the chairs' decision to discontinue
this obviously disturbing discussion--shall in no way be construed
Agree. Is misleading the same will be to say that to support IPv4 VPNs, you need to
change your routers. Most routers do not support
VPNs, but even do, you can create the VPNs directly from the computers that sit inside
the LANs.
The same way you can create now IPv6 tunnels, regardless the route
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as an Proposed Standard:
Title : Link Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses
Author(s) : J. Park, et al.
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-03.txt
Page
Margaret, Thomas,
The chairs of the IPv6 working group, on behalf of the working group,
request that the following document be published as a Proposed Standard:
Title : Management Information Base for the Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP)
Aut
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : State Model for IPv6 Interfaces
Author(s) : S. Madanaplli, et. al.
Filename: draft-syam-ipv6-state-model-00.txt
Pages : 12
Date
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Router Advertisement Issues for Movement Detection/
Detection of Network Attachment
Author(s) : J. Choi, et. al.
Filename: draft-jinch
This is one of my batch replies - but this time it's all on a single
thread. I can't claim that this was deliberate - I went out of town for
what was supposed to be a day trip, and was too ill to return for a
couple of days. When I got back there were several dozen messages in
this thread.
It app
sorry wrong list. Please do not respond.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Bound, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Comments: draft-savola-v6ops-transarch-01.txt
>
>
> This draft can become useful, but needs more
The chairs think that, while this has been an interesting discussion, it's
isn't within the scope of the working group and suggest it be moved
elsewhere. Lets focus our energy on completing the development of the IPv6
protocols and stop debating this issue.
Regards,
Bob Hinden & Brian Haberma
This draft can become useful, but needs more WG discussion and I suggest
we have that here and give Pekka input. Document needs spell checker
for some wordsm, and sentence structure check. Also to mahy cliches
used that convey no technical message to me as a reader. I think the
document importan
Sorry all these vendors support IPv6 upgrades as part of OS releases: Sun, IBM, HP,
Microsoft, Cisco, Juniper, Windriver, and others. Yes some router and embedded
systems hardware will require next gen hardware. But to say that IPv6 requires a
hardware upgrade is misleading and not true for mo
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
>How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
>centralized intermediary?
>
>- Ralph
There is no centralized intermediary. But skype uses other non-NATted
non-firewalled peers to route calls between two NATted FWed endpoints.
The
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> But there is a big difference between using a 3rd party directory,
> and passing data through an intermediary. That is, you might very
> well have end-to-end connectivity, but use a directory to locate
> the other end-point.
Indeed. But the difference is big technically, whi
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:02:39PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> But there is a big difference between using a 3rd party directory, and
> passing data through an intermediary. That is, you might very well have
> end-to-end connectivity, but use a directory to locate the other
> end-point.
Indeed.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:49:04AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to
> > some user behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server,
> > how does v4 deliver, without the receiving user having the pain
> > of port forwa
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
>How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
>centralized intermediary?
>
>- Ralph
There is no centralized intermediary. But skype uses other non-NATted
non-firewalled peers to route calls between two NATted FWed endpoints.
Re
> Tim Chown wrote:
> But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to
> some user behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server,
> how does v4 deliver, without the receiving user having the pain
> of port forwarding configuration on their NAT?
There are several methods today; u
At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
>
>I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
>amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How does Skype provide point-to-point connections
> through NAT without a centralized intermediary?
See inline.
Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being b
How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
centralized intermediary?
- Ralph
At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT apol
>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT is an option people will find
ways to twist application
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>internal network do not notice the failure at all. In the IPv6+firewall
>case the new addresses are provided to the hosts and eventually the old
>addresses time out -- and the internal TCP connection breaks. Ouch.
Not if you have statically assigned IPv6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Benny Amorsen wrote:
> On 2003-10-21 at 14:15, Todd T. Fries wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
> > NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
> > `block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, it is not very interesting for the purposes of
> determining whether IPv6 can _replace_ IPv4+NAT as suggested.
Even IPv4 can replace IPv4+NAT, anything can replace that
mechanism that
On 2003-10-21 at 14:15, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
> NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
> `block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep state' (in the pf terms of
> OpenBSD) and in two rules you have the
I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
`block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep state' (in the pf terms of
OpenBSD) and in two rules you have the same isolation of a NAT+IPv4 as
you do with IPv6+fire
On 2003-10-21 at 03:16, Michel Py wrote:
> True, but Teredo is both the best friend and the worst enemy of IPv6.
> The best friend because it does indeed enable app developers to develop
> IPv6-only apps before IPv6 is largely deployed at ISPs. The worst enemy
> because if IPv6-only apps work good
On 20 okt 2003, at 6:23, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|I don't see the upgrade costs for regular users. Users are by now
|used to upgrading monthly (if not more often) to plug the latest and
|greatest security holes, so a software upgrade to install IPv6
|functionality somewhere in the next three years or
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Dave Thaler wrote:
> 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
--On Monday, October 20, 2003 00:23:04 -0400 Dan Lanciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I strongly doubt that IPv6 will be available as a software-only upgrade
> for any but the latest equipment. There is just too little incentive for
> vendors (especially ones who have gone out of business :) t
32 matches
Mail list logo
