On 2007-07-02 00:21, Joe Abley wrote:
Very late to this party, but:
On 27-Jun-2007, at 09:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We can argue about the meaning of intrinsically I guess. But what I
mean
is that they are /48s and I don't expect to see /48s routed globally.
Architecturally, they are
On 2007-07-01 17:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A site is a network of computers with a single
administration, this can mean indeed a major corporation (who
maybe even require multiple /48's which is why rfc4193 is a
bit off to cover those cases)
Where has the IETF redefined the meaning of the
Paul,
On 2007-06-29 17:33, Paul Vixie wrote:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[vixie]
... and why are we wasting our keystrokes discussing this if there's a
preclusive topic being discussed somewhere entirely else?
I don't think it's preclusive. If that discussion does lead to an
Brian D,
On 2007-06-29 20:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think that ULA has come about as an answer to the need for IPv6 space,
which does not have procedural overhead or cost (both of which occur when
requesting space from RIRs).
There are more motivations than that - the ability to
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 08:48:14 pm bill fumerola wrote:
AfriNIC has implemented a PIv6 space policy[0]. part of it states:
* The 'end-site' must show a plan to use and announce the IPv6 provider
independent address space within twelve (12) months. After that period,
if not announced, the
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:21:10PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
Very late to this party, but:
On 27-Jun-2007, at 09:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We can argue about the meaning of intrinsically I guess. But what
I mean
is that they are /48s and I don't expect to see /48s routed globally.
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, I didn't intend to be emotional there. Let me try to explain. Until
we get something fundamentally different from the routing researchers,
the only model we have is BGP4, ...
i've heard of alternatives but you're right that nothing else has caught on.
I support the promotion of draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt to a Proposed
Standard.
IMO the editor and author(s) did an exceptionally good job in distilling our
many and often somewhat divergent comments into the document we're considering.
The above having been said, I'd like to share one
What's your estimate of the total number of ULA-C prefixes needed?
approximately one per family, worldwide, counting only the
population who has
electric power. much much higher than the 2-megaroute level, or
the number
of domain names registered in .COM and .DE (the two largest TLDs).
If
Le jeudi 28 juin 2007, ext Bob Hinden a écrit :
This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing
Title : Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
Author(s) : J. Abley, et al.
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt
If those numbers fit within reasonable guesses about sustainable
DFZ growth, no problem.
they don't fit, but they don't have to fit, because they're not going in.
How is this going to work? Are you assuming NATv6?
no. i'm assuming that the days when the DFZ was the center of the
Folks,
We had to get this new one out since we last discussed the -00 version
mainly with Tatuya and Brian Carpenter. The URL to the new one is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitf
alls-01.txt
Relevant points with the new I-D are below.
1. Please read
i took a copy of ula-central-02 and modded it with my current thinking and
submitted it as a new draft. i did three things wrong, first i didn't ask
the authors of central-02 if they wanted to be listed as authors of global-01
(but i didn't remove their names since a lot of the text was written
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:17:45PM +, Alain Patrick AINA wrote:
those in the AfriNIC region who want globally unique, registered space
but do not plan to announce the IPv6 PI address space have no method
of getting any such space. if anyone reads this differently than i do,
please
If those numbers fit within reasonable guesses about sustainable
DFZ growth, no problem.
they don't fit, but they don't have to fit, because they're not going
in.
How is this going to work? Are you assuming NATv6?
no. i'm assuming that the days when the DFZ was the center of the
Paul Vixie wrote:
the competing visions as i understand them are random-prefix ULA-C makes
it
impossible to postprocess one's log files on computers outside the
connectivity realm where they were gathered, makes recourse against
spammers
and ddos-for-hire crews even harder, and moves the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One comment I neglected to make in my previous response was, that
encouraging the use of PI, even when used on the far side of PA NAT,
means that the identity of (and NOC contact info for) anyone who
accidentally leaks packets with a source for which there is no route,
The interesting thing is, one person's PI is another person's PA.
By that I mean, that the difference between PI and PA, is subjective.
yes.
The general idea is that the bulk of address assignments used should be,
one would expect and hope, PA, and aggregated, into large assignments
of PI
... all of this ignores the fact that, architecturally, NATs have been
rejected as bad for end-to-end connectivity. To minimize problems caused by
NAT, it would probably be better to use autoconfiguration (stateless or
DHCP) to assign PA addresses to hosts (in addition to any non- globally-
19 matches
Mail list logo
