On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:15:07AM +0300, Ammar Salih wrote:
If those mechanisms are successful then why websites like google
do not use them? They use IP address instead, and it's not always
about http applications, how about VoIP applications, now you need
another mechanism? .. how about
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 09:34:46AM -0700, Stig Venaas wrote:
On 9/20/2011 2:03 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 20 sep 2011, at 9:58, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
For pt2pt SDH links you want /127 to avoid the ping-pong problem,
not /126.
That's nice (as long as your routers ignore the all
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:00:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that even today, we're at 0.1% of number assignment on MACs,
suggests that 48 bits is probably enough for quite some time.
This doesn't mean that MAC addresses 48 bits won't come along some day.
They're here
Bcc:
Subject: Re: What's 16 bits between friends?
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:16:04PM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
That was, and still is, the official IEEE line. IEEE 802 is very
concerned that 48 bit is not quite enough.
Let me add that IEEE1394
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:04:24AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-08-30 02:08, Thomas Narten wrote:
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd suggest that working on a new RH design is
mostly a waste of time at this point.
Can we please _first_ identify a user/customer for a proposed RH,
I
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:39:32PM +1000, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi Ignatious,
Quoting the RFC2460:
With one exception, of Hop-by-hop extension headers are not examined
or processed by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet
reaches the node (or each of the set
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 07:18:47AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
I'm don't think I'm going down it. You seemed to be questioning why
subnets were fixed length, I provided most likelyreasons why, including
evidence that the original design of IPv4, pre-classes, also followed
this model. I think
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:39:40PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
[trimming this to just the IPv6 w.g.]
We think the question for the IPv6 working group on this topic is
does the working group want to do anything to address the issues
raised about the Type 0 routing header. Possible actions
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 01:10:12PM -0400, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Not sure if this is the right wg for this idea, or for that matter if
I'm suggesting anything new.
[...]
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have NAPT without the TCP/UDP Port ID
trick?
You're reinventing source routing.
[...]
To
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 01:20:00PM +0530, Nilesh Simaria wrote:
Solicited Node Multicast addresses are using last 24bits of MAC address.
Assume in a given link, if there exists few nodes with
unique MAC addresses (but same last 24 bits). In this case both all will
be listening to same
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:12:04AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Greg Daley wrote:
Hi Pascal,
I think we're straying from the original topic...
I think that infrastructure WLAN is point (not all statsions but
only the base station) to multipoint one.
Radio, yes. Network, no. The base
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:02:48PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
Probably not going to happen in the next 200 years or more, and more
likely it will never happen. By the time that becomes a possibility,
IPv7
already proposed at least twice: TP/IX (RFC 1475) or CATNIP (RFC 1707)?
Regards,
12 matches
Mail list logo
