On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Michael Richardson
wrote:
> If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps identify
> the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff is going to be
> useful, there will already be a collision avoidance protocol that will
> tell each car (even w
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus
> in the room to
> adopt this as a working group document.
>
> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
> consensus on the mail
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, sofiane Imadali
wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your interest Roger, your question is very pertinent and I
> wanted to share it with the group (hope you don't mind bringing this
> offlist mail to the list).
no I don't mind, I'll comment on your answer inline
> -
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
> Yes, and if I am not wrong, ULAs are globally unique.
There is no guaranty that it will ever be unique, just that the chance
of a collision are quite low.
--
Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com | - IPv
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
> (or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
> someone can map easily fro
sorry, but we can't all be nice all the time, see more inline,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
> (b) The benefit comes from the following, i.e. one of the 4rd objectives:
> - We want to statelessly establish automatic tunnels for residual IPv4 across
> IPv6-only domains.
n
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/3/13 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> On 2/3/2013 2:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 03/02/2013 17:26, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
To a significant degree Randy, I agree with you in your comment about
magic bits. If I w
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> agree with what Ray says. that gives a path forward for 4rd without requiring
> us to settle the interface-id structure question.
For what it's worth, I also agree with Ray.
Nothing brought forward by or from 4rd have convince me about anyth
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
> 2012-12-2110:49, Ole Troan :
> ...
>>> (*)
>>> 4rd implementors are free to add code to reject any intra-site IID that (by
>>> mistake) would be universal-scope, and in the 4rd-assigned IID range.
>>
>> but the current specification does not
see inline:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
> OK I'll bite. All IMVHO.
>
> In answer to Fred's question, to me the current problem is on the end
> hosts and not on existing intermediate devices.
>
> There are many different ways to assign IPv6 addresses, including manual
> ass
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
> Ole, Roland,
>
> Could we limit the 6man discussion to the question asked by Softwire, i.e.
> whether new IID types can be defined, using u=g=1, with a first one for 4rd,
> is compatible with the current IPv6 specification?
sorry, but you
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
> describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The
> draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6
> Addresses. It u
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Brian Haberman
wrote:
> All,
> The chairs would like to get a sense of the working group on changing
> the current (defined 3484) model of preferring public addresses over privacy
> addresses during the address selection process. RFC 3484 prefers public
> addr
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> This is a consensus call on adopting:
>
> Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in
> Uniform Resource Identifiers
> Author(s) : Brian Carpenter
> Robert M. Hinden
> Filename : d
On Dec 23, 2011 8:57 AM, "Doug Barton" wrote:
> What I *am* saying is that extending RA is always the *wrong* answer.
Yes it is. Keep RA simple and lets solve "problems" elsewhere, dhcp is the
current tool.
--- Roger J ---
IE
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Roger,
>
> On 2011-12-16 10:52, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>> wrote:
>>> Well, the end of my conversation is at
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf
> In IESG parlance that all seems like "new I-D needed" to me.
>
> Regards
> Brian Carpenter
>
>
> On 2011-12-16 08:07, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2011 7:32 PM, "Brian Haberman" wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> Unfortunately,
On Dec 15, 2011 7:32 PM, "Brian Haberman" wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
> Unfortunately, the draft is in a limbo state at this point. The WG
> Last Call ended about a month ago with zero comments or statements of
> support. The chairs cannot advance this document without some show of
> support by the
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do 6man people think about moving RFC 2874 (the A6 record)
> from Experimental to Historic status?
>
> It's pretty clear that it doesn't have any real value, and
> it can still create confusion for newcomers.
uh, thought (a
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> While I do think the NAT444 option has value, I also do think it is
> also fundamentally delaying the inevitable "Stick" option. In my
> experience, the sooner you suffer the pain, the less you suffer over
> all. ISPs with customer owned CPE a
On man, august 16, 2010 11:46, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I have no plans to ask Cisco and Juniper about this. I want /127 to
>>> continue working, and couldn't care less about subnet anycast for my
>>> core routers.
>>
>> I think you miss my point: they might finally comply with the specs one
>> day (i
21 matches
Mail list logo
