> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:16:02 +0200,
> Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> So I really believe in the DAD usefulness and if you'd like to remove
>> or "optimize" DAD on one of my networks my answer will be "NO!".
> I believe the optimistic DAD folks are very keen on keeping the DAD
% Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
%
% | be prepared to defend yourself in court(s) in any number of
% | jurisdictions.
%
% Against whom exactly would he be defending? Presumably the litigation would
% be initiated by someone who had a financial stake in the matter. Are you
% acknowledgi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |Dan Lanciani wrote:
> |
> |> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |>
> |> |I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
> |> |
> |> |Organisations wanting "unconn
Hi Francis,
> => this is a half baked solution, i.e., either you don't want duplicates
> on your network and you enforce DAD, or you accept possible problems
> and you makes the live of mobile nodes (and of implementors) far easier.
>
So let me ask a question. If you believe optimized DAD is a ha
Thus spake "Bill Manning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> be prepared to defend yourself in court(s) in any number of jurisdictions.
> ... You should have the ISOC/IETF legal team review the creation of
> property rights by the WG chairs and the IESG. Its not going to be easy
> and its not clear the effort
"Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|> |I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
|> |
|> |Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to
|> |an existing organisation that they thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
> |
> |Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to
> |an existing organisation that they think will outlast
"Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
|
|Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to
|an existing organisation that they think will outlast them in age
|and that already has a LIR allocation allocated. Give th
Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| be prepared to defend yourself in court(s) in any number of
| jurisdictions.
Against whom exactly would he be defending? Presumably the litigation would
be initiated by someone who had a financial stake in the matter. Are you
acknowledging that the curr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |- Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space,
I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to
an existing organisati
Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|- Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space,
No, it is not. Address space could be given away at no cost just as it was
in the beginning. A fee may be a useful tool to discourage hoarding, but there
may be other equally effective (or ev
be prepared to defend yourself in court(s) in any number of
jurisdictions. You should check w/ the RIRs on their role/position
wrt legal precident on address/prefix ownership. You should
have the ISOC/IETF legal team review the creation of property rights
by the WG chairs and the IESG. Its
Hi Francis,
There seems to be some
people who do have an interest in quick startup & movement times.
=> in this case they should use dedicated links where DAD is disabled,
RAs are used at a silly high rate, etc.
I agree that DAD is not the only issue to look at here -- I once
calculate
All,
The chairs are soliciting volunteers to be scribes for the IPv6
WG session in Seoul. If you are willing to perform this duty, please
contact us.
Thanks,
Brian & Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
14 matches
Mail list logo
