Brian Carpenter writes:
> > The wording I propose to add is:
> >
> > "There SHOULD be an administrative option to change this preference, if
> > the
> > implementation supports privacy addresses. If there is no such option,
> > there
> > MUST be an administrative option to disable
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6)
Author(s) : Dave Thaler
Yes, that was also my reaction. Why one Internet? Because Internet means tying
together multiple separate networks. Of course you can have the same addresses
on the different networks. Nothing new there either. That's why we have NATs,
NAPTs, and IPv6 NPTs.
No one is forcing an ISP or an enterp
Wasn't this what the Internet was supposed to be? I'm tempted to ask how
old you are, but I don't want to be rude.
As the Monty Python would put it: 'You see, the key is in the name -
Inter - net(work)'
:-)
cheers
Carlos
On 4/10/12 10:24 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my opinion, we can ad
Hi Pars,
> I propose have a network of Internets:
>
> Internet1
> Internet2
> Internet3
> ...
> Interntet_n
>
> In Internet 1 and 2 we may have two nodes with the same address.
> The goal is to route the packet to the right Internet. I don't think it is
> impossible.
You should talk to Jos Vr
Hello,
yes, address translator and higher level gateways are tools to cope with
the difficulties caused by the address shortage, but
it is difficult to scale these tools
and we can rid of them with the large scale deployment of IPv6 based
Internet.
Less energy consumption, clearer architecture.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Lixia,
> >>
> >> The original note says "I think it is possible to locate the node we
> >> need."
> >>
>
If we created the two or three Internets, then linked them together by
physical
network nodes or layer 3 devices, would the multiple Internets revert to
one?
10rdmwesh
--
__
Mwendwa Kivuva
For
Business Development
Transworld Computer Channels
twitter.com/lordmwesh
www.transw
If we created the two or three Internets, then linked them together by
physical
network nodes or layer 3 devices, would the multiple Internets revert to
one?
--
__
Mwendwa Kivuva
For
Business Development
Transworld Computer Channels
twitter.com/lordmwesh
www.transworldAfrica
Why *not* one Internet?
If someone wants to create multiple ones (or, more accurately, break the
existing one into multiple pieces), it seems incumbent on them to make a solid
case for doing so. That is, to show a specific problem, and a technical case
why a drastic architectural change is t
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>>
>> Lixia,
>>
>> The original note says "I think it is possible to locate the node we
>> need."
>>
>> So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to
>> d
Hi Brian,
I was not questioning about connectivity (or divide Internet).
I was just looking for an explanation of how the proposal could be MORE
effective *and* more economical.
Lixia
On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Lixia,
>
> The original note says "I think it is pos
I am not a troll I worked on IPv6 and MANET for longtime.
Now I choose to wake up and question.
Pars
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:31:04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Your original note also says "I am not here to discuss these de
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lixia,
>
> The original note says "I think it is possible to locate the node we need."
>
> So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to
> deal
> with the fact that addresses would
Pars,
This discussion is out of scope for the ipv6@ietf.org mailing list. Please
take it elsewhere.
Bob & Ole
6man w.g. Chairs
On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> I am here to question:
>
> My question is why IPv6 is the end of the road.
>
> We shouldn't give all the respon
I am here to question:
My question is why IPv6 is the end of the road.
We shouldn't give all the responsibility to a few persons.
We should not be dependent on their decisions.
If the transition to a complete IPv6 network is not possible, then we can
add a new Internet. It can be IPv4, IPv6, or
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:31:04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Your original note also says "I am not here to discuss these details."
> Sorry,
> but in the IETF it's *exactly* the details that we must discuss; that's
our
> job. We've been doing so since 1992 to my personal knowledge.
>
> Regar
Lixia,
The original note says "I think it is possible to locate the node we need."
So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to deal
with the fact that addresses would be ambiguous. Since we have 15 years
experience of the pain caused by ambiguous addresses, and a perfe
the Internet is a means to communicate.
and the market drives for most effective/efficient/economical communication
systems (there are tradeoffs between the adjectives)
wonder if you could help explain how your picture of "network of Internets"
would be more effective and economical (than what we
plonk
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> No sir "not questioning" is being the nut case. Sorry.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>> > Why me?
>>
>> because you are the nut case who proposed it
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush wro
No sir "not questioning" is being the nut case. Sorry.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Why me?
>
> because you are the nut case who proposed it
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > > > In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessar
> Why me?
because you are the nut case who proposed it
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > > In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
> > > one etc.
> > >
> > > We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
> > > ...
> >
> > in
Why me?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
> > one etc.
> >
> > We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
> > ...
>
> in the words of vince perriello, send code
>
> randy
>
---
> In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
> one etc.
>
> We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
> ...
in the words of vince perriello, send code
randy
IETF IPv6 working group m
Hi,
In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
one etc.
We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
We just need a *network of Internets*.
The first (current) Internet is an IPv4 Internet.
The second Internet can be an IPv4 Internet too. In this case w
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection
Author(s) : Rajiv Asati
Hemant Singh
26 matches
Mail list logo
