ks OK, however.
Letters "g" to "z" (either case) are the only technically possible
characters that are really bad choices.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
with
0.8.e.f.ip6.arpa?
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
for this is, so can someone please explain what the next
steps are?
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
a sequence of ten DNS labels, not just one. Zone cuts can be
introduced at any level to split the job up.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
. This is
sitting behind an ADSL line.
Comments welcome.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
ocate prefixes. I don't
intend to make any such unfounded claim.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
still be of use. Operating such a thing might also
have useful lessons for the operation of the eventual prefix registry.
Thoughts, anyone?
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Request
y allocation
fundamentally affects the ways the prefix can be used. This is quite
unlike the issue of the allocation procedure.
By the way, do you see any redeeming features in the idea of temporary
allocation of these prefixes? I see only greater complexity and reduced
utili
ings look different when seen from points of view
in the two areas. One of the things that differs is whether the NAT
box appears to be a router or a non-routing host.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL
ey work within a region determined by the owner of the address
(which is approximately correct); they do not necessarily work in the
public Internet.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrati
numbering clash. Idiots who use fd00::/48
will clash with each other, but the rest of us avoid clashes with each
other and with the idiots.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Does anybody have a thesaurus handy?
"Non-global"?
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
7;s already adequately
specified by section 2.3 of draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.
Section 10 of draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00 incorporates the IPv6
unscoped address syntax by reference, without specifying which document
is to provide that syntax. It should probably have an ex
JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>I submitted an update version of RFC2462 as an individual draft on
>Oct. 20th
That was the cutoff date for initial-version submissions, so you probably
just missed it.
-
be made
about the relation between the WG and this draft then it could probably
be decided quickly in Minneapolis. (I won't be in Minneapolis, btw --
I'm not going to the US under the present regime.)
-zefram
--
Andrew Main (Zefram) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
4.54*10^-11" and so on.
All the top-leve section numbers have a ".0" appended that doesn't
belong there.
-zefram
--
Andrew Main (Zefram) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
at the automated system I suggest above can do this admirably.
-zefram
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
e
games can be provoked into saying.
-zefram
--
Andrew Main (Zefram) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
18 matches
Mail list logo
