Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:36:02 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 jul 2006, at 12.16, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
snip
There are two problems here. 1) I am pretty convinced that the IETF
shouldn't be running address-policy for the
On 16 jul 2006, at 00.58, Tony Hain wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
...
I would be happy if I knew about deployments being cooked that
required /64 per user, let alone anything more. I still have a hard
time imagining what technology will deployed at most sites that
_require_ separate
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:09:56 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 jul 2006, at 00.58, Tony Hain wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I think that over those 500+ years we might even have solved routing.
In the mean time even for new encap types you will
On 25 jul 2006, at 12.16, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:09:56 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 jul 2006, at 00.58, Tony Hain wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I think that over those 500+ years we might even have solved routing.
In the
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:36:02 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 jul 2006, at 12.16, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
snip
There are two problems here. 1) I am pretty convinced that the IETF
shouldn't be running address-policy for the ISPs. Especially
On 25-jul-2006, at 22:50, Mark Smith wrote:
Along those lines, I'm curious what you (and other people who
seem to
be against /48s for end sites) think of the excessive 46 bits of
address space that ethernet uses, when the reality is that no more
than 12 bits of address space would probably
I would like to echo some comments by David Conrad and Mark Smith. a /48
or 65,536 /64 subnets does seem like an overly large assignment to a
residential user.
IMHO moving the boundary to a /56 is completely missing the boat on what
the actual problem is. We discovered that classful addresses
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It
should be stressed that having different prefix sizes in the market
place leads to higher operational cost because moving from one ISP to
another then requires doing more work than just change a fixed number
of high bits in all
On 14-jul-2006, at 21:05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
[...]
On this point, unless you're speaking of NATs (which I though would be
discouraged with v6), doesn't it make a lot of sense to use the same
address prefix to reach the subnet outside and inside the home router?
Huh???
I have no idea
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
...
I would be happy if I knew about deployments being cooked that
required /64 per user, let alone anything more. I still have a hard
time imagining what technology will deployed at most sites that
_require_ separate subnets, but I am trying to be generous and
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It
should be stressed that having different prefix sizes in the market
place leads to higher operational cost because moving from one
On 14-jul-2006, at 8:50, Mark Smith wrote:
If everyone accepts that ipv6 addresses have variable length
subnet masks
(and everyone has the appropriate tools to handle this)
Actually the SUBNET mask is now pretty much fixed at 64 bits. From
RFC 3513:
For all unicast addresses, except
On 13-jul-2006, at 12:21, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
After speaking with Thomas shortly in the hallway yesterday I
understand that he doesn't feel it's appropriate (anymore) to tell
the RIRs what prefix sizes to use. I don't necessarily agree
On 14 jul 2006, at 06.05, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
IMHO moving the boundary to a /56 is completely missing the boat on
what
the actual problem is. We discovered that classful addresses were a
mistake and moved to variable length subnet masks. Let's not
repeat this
Hi Iljitsch,
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:54:54 -0400
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, except that /56 is still too large for small / home
networks, and I fear that ISPs will want to skimp even more and give
out /64s.
I'd think the market would sort that out very quickly
Selon Dan Lanciani [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In particular
it would be good if various consumer/SOHO router products correctly
(and usefully) handled /64s and /128s.
They definitely should handle delegation of any size above or equal to /64. I
don't quite understand how they could support /128
Ralph,
Thomas - is there any way in which you can quantify excessive?
Whether excessive is an appropriate word to use is a judgement
call. YMMV. But, the word excessive is literally the word I hear
many people (especially in the RIR and operational community) use when
talking about this issue.
Hi,
On Jul 13, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Whether excessive is an appropriate word to use is a judgement
call. YMMV. But, the word excessive is literally the word I hear
many people (especially in the RIR and operational community) use when
talking about this issue.
Actually, I
On 12-jul-2006, at 9:30, Thomas Narten wrote:
draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
I have several problems with this document.
It's vague. RFC 3177 is very clear and provides easily identifiable
recommendations supported by arguments. The new draft doesn't provide
any
Hi Thomas,
Below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:30:19 -0400
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ipv6@ietf.org, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Asunto: Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
Hi Jordi.
Hi all
/64, if the
delegated prefix is a /60, it's not possible to concatenate 2001:DB8::/60
with 0x16 to form a /64.
- Ralph
On 7/13/06 12:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12-jul-2006, at 9:30, Thomas Narten wrote:
draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
[...]
I'd like
--- Forwarded Message
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:26:27 -0400
Subject: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
FYI, draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt was submitted just
prior to the ID cutoff, and the authors believe
-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
--- Forwarded Message
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:26:27 -0400
Subject: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
FYI, draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt was submitted just
prior to the ID
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|I've reviewed this document and my comments are as follows.
|
|1. Introduction
|giving out an excessive. I think we need to define excessive and/or say if
|this is an objective or subjective perception.
|
|A general comment/opinion. I don't think
Hi,
Following on from Jordi's comment,
In addition, as an end user, it provides a recommendation to ISPs to provide
a reduced service in terms of the number of subnets, instead of the actual
/48 recommendations (with a clear example for /56), which I think is very
bad, especially when it is
25 matches
Mail list logo
