On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|
| [aggregated mail :)]
|
| Mohsen Souissi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| > On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
|
|
| > | Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very public.
| >
| > ==> AFNIC (French R
rule for the WG.
Thanks
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Mans Nilsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Mark Smith
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Will IPv4 be formally deprecated when IPv6 is
good enough ?
Subject: Will IPv4 be formally deprecated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[aggregated mail :)]
Mohsen Souissi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> | Apparently there is work being done on this, but it is not very public.
>
> ==> AFNIC (French Registry) has been running an official IPv6-capable
> nam
hanks
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Mans Nilsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Will IPv4 be formally deprecated when IPv6 is
> good enough ?
>
>
> Subject: Will
Dear Mr Py,
Sorry, could you run that past me one more time ..?
J
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > Mark Smith wrote:
> > a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good
> > enough? If so, are the related IPv4 NAT RFCs also going to be
> > deprecated
On 15 Oct, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[...]
|
| > That's all protocol stuff. Hopefully all of
| > this can be fixed in the not too distant future. But there there is
| > another extremely important issue that (in my not so humble opinion)
| > must absolutely be fixed before making any such statement:
> Client access and for some also hosting is taken care of by
> using tunnelbrokers and other transition mechanisms. ISP's
> should start enabling IPv6 on their native networks where
> possible and start providing servers with IPv6 connectivity.
> Then it is at least possible for clients to use it.
--On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 14:55:58 +0300 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Failed to produce a multihoming solution for smaller enterprises which
> would not need an AS number otherwise, but whose about only (clear) option
> is to go and get an AS number for their site multihoming
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Måns Nilsson wrote:
[...]
> > There are now less than 35000 free AS numbers. If such a policy would be
> > adopted there would be a huge land rush, depleting the AS number supply
> > and forever polluting the IPv6 routing table with 64000 or so routes,
> > most of which don't n
--On Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:10:39 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A very good property of IPv6 is that we get to avoid some of the mistakes
> that were made with IPv4. One of those mistakes was giving out addresses
> in ways that didn't scale. History teaches us t
On 14 okt 2003, at 17:32, Mans Nilsson wrote:
b) Is IPv6 good enough yet ?
I think so. There are valid concerns on two things; multihoming and
address allocation procedures. There seems to be strong forces among
the
researchers and vendors advocting that we halt and wait for the
Grail of multiho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 14 okt 2003, at 16:13, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > A little later, it occured to me that maybe what the market might be
> > missing is a statement from the IETF, IESG and/or IAB, that IPv6 is
> > now *ready*, and can be deployed i
On 14 okt 2003, at 16:13, Mark Smith wrote:
A little later, it occured to me that maybe what the market might be
missing is a statement from the IETF, IESG and/or IAB, that IPv6 is
now *ready*, and can be deployed in production via the available
transition mechanisms, slowly replacing IPv4 (+ N
My 2 (euro-)cents:
> That brings to my mind two questions
>
> a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough?
No.
> If so, are the related IPv4 NAT RFCs also going to be deprecated at that
> time ?
No.
> b) Is IPv6 good enough yet ?
No. Still a lot of work to be done.
At 07:13 AM 10/14/2003, Mark Smith wrote:
A little later, it occured to me that maybe what the market might be
missing is a statement from the IETF, IESG and/or IAB, that IPv6 is now
*ready*, and can be deployed in production via the available transition
mechanisms, slowly replacing IPv4 (+ NAT)
Mark,
> Mark Smith wrote:
> a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good
> enough? If so, are the related IPv4 NAT RFCs also going to be
> deprecated at that time ?
IMHO it's not a matter of being good enough, it's a matter of how many
IPv4 hosts are still up. The IETF deprecating
Subject: Will IPv4 be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough ? Date: Tue, Oct
14, 2003 at 11:43:36PM +0930 Quoting Mark Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> That brings to my mind two questions
>
> a) Is IPv4 going to be formally deprecated when IPv6 is good enough? If so, are the
>
Hi,
A recent discussion came up on the ipv6 mailing list regarding why the market picked
up IPv4 NAT, initially asked by Geoff Huston, and posted to the list by Pekka Savola.
Archives of the discussion are available at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ipng&m=106389565013129&w=2
and
http://mar
18 matches
Mail list logo
