> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:28 +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>> Perhaps we should wait until IPv6 traffic exceeds IPv4's before
>> deciding. With the trivial amount of use that IPv6 currently has, it
>> makes no sense to say history shows it hasn't been useful and should be
>> deprecated.
rofl. these a
Hi Karl,
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:23:47 +1000
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:28 +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Perhaps we should wait until IPv6 traffic exceeds IPv4's before
> > deciding. With the trivial amount of use that IPv6 currently has, it
> > makes no sense to say history shows
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:28 +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> Perhaps we should wait until IPv6 traffic exceeds IPv4's before
> deciding. With the trivial amount of use that IPv6 currently has, it
> makes no sense to say history shows it hasn't been useful and should be
> deprecated.
On the other hand, i
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:06:07 +1000
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 07:01 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Intended status: Standards Track August 2010
> > Expires: February 2, 2011
> > IPv6 Subnet Anycast Deprecated
> > dra
On Jul 3, 2011 6:13 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>
> > I'd agree wholeheartedly with deprecating them both! But this draft
> > expired some months ago - what are its chances?
>
> i was discouraged by bob from submitting it. dreadine approacheth.
> should i?
>
Yes, please
Cb
> randy
> ---
Yes please.
aj
--Original Message--
From: Randy Bush
Sender: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
To: Karl Auer
Cc: IETF IPv6
Subject: Re: subnet router anycast
Sent: 3 Jul 2011 18:12
> I'd agree wholeheartedly with deprecating them both! But this draft
> expired some months ago - what are its chance
> I'd agree wholeheartedly with deprecating them both! But this draft
> expired some months ago - what are its chances?
i was discouraged by bob from submitting it. dreadine approacheth.
should i?
randy
IETF IPv6 working group
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 09:25 +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> To make a higher level observation, I don't think it is any different
> to the operation of host anycast, as the destination address in the
> packet matches one of the router's own addresses, so the router would
> process the packet in "host mo
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 07:01 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> Intended status: Standards Track August 2010
> Expires: February 2, 2011
> IPv6 Subnet Anycast Deprecated
> draft-ymbk-no-subnet-anycast-00
>
> Abstract
>
>IPv6 subnet a
On Jun 23, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> That's correct. Ultimately the security of the client depends on the
>> client being secure. Trying to secure the client by securing the
>> network is a noble cause, but ultimately doomed to failure, because you
>
Hi,
On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 23:50:25 +0200
Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03.07.2011 19:03, Karl Auer wrote:
> > Which RFCs (or other sources) describe how IPv6 subnet anycast *works*?
> > In particular how it works when there are multiple routers in a single
> > subnet?
>
> That's a good quest
Network Working GroupR. Bush
Internet-Draft IIJ
Intended status: Standards Track August 2010
Expires: February 2, 2011
IPv6 Subnet Anycast Deprecat
Hi,
On 03.07.2011 19:03, Karl Auer wrote:
> Which RFCs (or other sources) describe how IPv6 subnet anycast *works*?
> In particular how it works when there are multiple routers in a single
> subnet?
That's a good question. I was also looking for that. It's distributed
across various RFCs:
---
Which RFCs (or other sources) describe how IPv6 subnet anycast *works*?
In particular how it works when there are multiple routers in a single
subnet?
Regards, K.
--
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) +61-2-6
14 matches
Mail list logo
