I was referring to dual stack.
On 9/14/10 12:08 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>> XP has limitations but is still usable if IPv6 is enabled.
>
> on a dual-stack lan, or one with a specific dns-over-v4 crutch for xp
>
> randy
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Ca
> XP has limitations but is still usable if IPv6 is enabled.
on a dual-stack lan, or one with a specific dns-over-v4 crutch for xp
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.iet
Hi Jason,
On 10-09-14 10:50 AM, jason.w...@cox.com wrote:
True.
Usable in a dual-stack environment.
Not usable IPv6-only.
Absolutely right. The BBF architecture in question is dual-stack.
Thanks
Suresh
IETF IPv6 working
comcast.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:46 AM
>> To: Weil, Jason (CCI-Atlanta); otr...@employees.org; Suresh Krishnan
>> Cc: olaf.bonn...@telekom.de; ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: AW: New version available
>>
>> XP has limitations but is still usable
Suresh Krishnan
> Cc: olaf.bonn...@telekom.de; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AW: New version available
>
> XP has limitations but is still usable if IPv6 is enabled.
>
>
> On 9/14/10 10:40 AM, "Jason Weil" wrote:
>
> > The whole lack of IPv6 transport
; -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Ole Troan
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:32 AM
>> To: Suresh Krishnan
>> Cc: olaf.bonn...@telekom.de; ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: AW: New version avai
Sursh,
let us say we have 5 classes of host implementations:
1) IPv4 only and those which will never be upgraded with IPv6 support
2) partly broken IPv6 support and without DHCPv6
3) partly broken IPv6 support with DHCPv6
4) full IPv6 support without DHCPv6
5) f
14, 2010 10:32 AM
> To: Suresh Krishnan
> Cc: olaf.bonn...@telekom.de; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AW: New version available
>
> Suresh,
>
> >> 4) full IPv6 support without DHCPv6
> >> 5) full IPv6 support with DHCPv6
> >> by partly broken I mean lacking d
Suresh,
>> 4) full IPv6 support without DHCPv6
>> 5) full IPv6 support with DHCPv6
>> by partly broken I mean lacking dual stack / IPv4/IPv6 multihoming support.
>> i.e happy eyeballs or having other serious short comings. I do not want to
>> enable IPv6 on hosts implementations that e.g have 75
Hi Ole,
On 10-09-13 05:20 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
Olaf,
let us say we have 5 classes of host implementations:
1) IPv4 only and those which will never be upgraded with IPv6 support
2) partly broken IPv6 support and without DHCPv6
3) partly broken IPv6 support with DHCPv6
4) full IPv6 support with
Hi Ole,
On 10-09-13 03:16 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
4) full IPv6 support without DHCPv6
5) full IPv6 support with DHCPv6
by partly broken I mean lacking dual stack / IPv4/IPv6 multihoming support. i.e
happy eyeballs or having other serious short comings. I do not want to enable
IPv6 on hosts imple
Hi Woj,
thx for your answer. I think, that you 've misunderstood / misinterpreted my
words. I'm sure that you know very well that a service provider wants to change
as little as possible and that he can not influence / modify all host
implementations on customer site.
Regarding I-D krishnan-r
Olaf,
>> let us say we have 5 classes of host implementations:
>>
>> 1) IPv4 only and those which will never be upgraded with IPv6 support
>> 2) partly broken IPv6 support and without DHCPv6
>> 3) partly broken IPv6 support with DHCPv6
>> 4) full IPv6 support without DHCPv6
>> 5) full IPv6 suppor
af
> Cc: wdec.i...@gmail.com; ipv6@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: New version available
>
> Olaf,
--
...
--
>
> so which solutions do we have:
>
> 1) only support DHCP on the BBF link-layer in the N:1 VLAN case.
> this will affect some legacy hos
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Ole Troan wrote:
4) full IPv6 support without DHCPv6
we don't care about 1. we do _not_ want to deliver IPv6 service to 2 +
3. so the problematic one is 4. does anyone know of any class 4 IPv6
implementation?
I'd imagine cany class 4 IPv6 devices will quickly be pushed
Olaf,
> thx for your comments. I nearly forgot that an ISP has to offer its customers
> a good service, thx for reminding me ;-).
> I'm just inserting as an answer a sentence, I found in an email posted by Tom
> Petch on this mailing list in another context:
>
> Tom Petch wrote on Fr 10.09.201
Hi Woj,
thx for your comments. I nearly forgot that an ISP has to offer its customers a
good service, thx for reminding me ;-).
I'm just inserting as an answer a sentence, I found in an email posted by Tom
Petch on this mailing list in another context:
Tom Petch wrote on Fr 10.09.2010 18:06:
>
> > PPP is not used here. There are numerous different
> deployment models, PPP
> > is an expensive one that should be avoided unless there is
> serious use for
> > it.
>
> While it is true that PPP is not used here, I won't say that
> PPP should be avoided.
> PPP is a valid and widely deplo
18 matches
Mail list logo
