Hello.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Mon, 29 May 2006 19:23:36 +0900), Arifumi
Matsumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
* to update default rule.
The default rule today is:
PrefixPrecedence Label
::1/128 50 0
::/0 40 1
Hi,
thank you for your reply.
Stig Venaas wrote:
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
Le Lundi 29 Mai 2006 13:23, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
- Teredo is defined. (RFC4380)
Teredo should have less priority than 6to4 and IPv4
considering its communication overhead and reliability ?
Le Mardi 30 Mai 2006 09:42, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
About SIP and P2P applications,
especially nowadays, they are already NAT-aware.
They might be in a few years. They are definitely not yet, but OK, the
updated spec is not there yet either.
So, even when you use a private IPv4 address
Hi, all.
I'd like to start revision of RFC3484, because everybody knows
it has some defects and I think this issue of address selection
at end hosts is very important.
The points that I want to include in the revision of RFC3484
are follows:
Essential points,
* to remove site-local unicast
Hello,
Le Lundi 29 Mai 2006 13:23, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
- Teredo is defined. (RFC4380)
Teredo should have less priority than 6to4 and IPv4
considering its communication overhead and reliability ?
Also, this value below conforms to Windows.
I pretty much agree
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
Le Lundi 29 Mai 2006 13:23, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
- Teredo is defined. (RFC4380)
Teredo should have less priority than 6to4 and IPv4
considering its communication overhead and reliability ?
Also, this value below conforms to Windows.
