Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se writes:
I deployed one-vlan-per-customer-subvlan with a shared /27 supernet on
Extreme Networks equipment in ~2002, the same thing can be done on
Cisco as well (ip address unnumbered lo10 and static routes for each
/32 to a specific vlan interface).
Thank
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes:
The UDP checksum in the outer header on LISP user-data does nothing, is
expensive/impossible to compute (depending on the hardware), and therefore the
correct practical engineering choice is to not compute it.
You will probably eventually see
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
There's no retransmission in UDP.
Obviously not by the protocol stack. That doesn't stop applications from
retransmitting. TFTP or SIP won't give up just because the first packet
is lost. RTP will keep transmitting new packets, even if it
On 2003-11-05 at 10:30, Markku Savela wrote:
MIP6 has really no need for messing with RA's. It should just detect
movement by the fact that the CoA it has been using has been removed
from the stack. Then it can find a new CoA from the stack, when it
configures.
In some cases, imminent death
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 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
