On 10-nov-04, at 0:00, Leo Bicknell wrote:
with the protocols still designed to work over IPv4 NAT, and the
complexity of IPv6 NAT being roughly s/long/long long/g (yes,
simplified, but you get my point) and recompiling your NAT code,
I'm not sure what will be the barrier to IPv6 NAT.
The main
This thread was started by Leo Bicknell on Mon Nov 08 14:28:16 2004. The
original post stated:
The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 private networks. Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined for
the IPv6 world. Those two drafts can be found at:
I just want to thank everybody for the OL e-mails about sandvine...time
will tell how successful service flow management tools like this will
be... the geek inside sad bad bad bad messing with my packets
Thanks,
Paul
--
Paul A. BradfordSenior Network Engineer
and do explain how a user coming in with their laptop and
dialing a provider is gonna be affected by your nat
If IPv6 had local scope addresses, then NAT would not be
necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
unauthorized link. I know that the IETF has deprecated
local scope
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and do explain how a user coming in with their laptop and
dialing a provider is gonna be affected by your nat
If IPv6 had local scope addresses, then NAT would not be
necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
If IPv6 had local scope addresses, then NAT would not be
necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
unauthorized link.
yes. just like we see no 1918 leakage now.
randy
FYI.
- ferg
-- Forwarded Message --
On October 26, the IESG and IAB sent out a call for consensus to the IETF on
administrative restructuring, referencing the Internet-Draft:
- IAB and IESG Recommendation for IETF Administrative Restructuring
included
in CSCdx46180 and is being tracked by Cisco Bug ID CSCee50294 ( registered
customers only) .
This advisory is available at
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20041110-dhcp.shtml.
Affected Products
=
This vulnerability was introduced by the fix for CSCdx46180
Dear all
Something I don't understand and would like you to
help.
1/ for the url:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/08/12/multihoming.html
I don't understand those 2 steps:
- Register your routing policy in a Routing Registry.
- Use looking glasses to see if your announcements are
We see a lot of interest among enterprises in ITIL for IT service
management, which I'm guessing would overlap the FCAPS framework. Is anyone
investing it for the SP side?
(what's ITIL? - http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2261)
Irwin
From: Christian Kuhtz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09
adrian kok wrote:
I don't understand those 2 steps:
- Register your routing policy in a Routing Registry.
See:
http://www.radb.net
- Use looking glasses to see if your announcements are
visible elsewhere on the Internet.
See
http://www.traceroute.org/#Looking%20Glass
We see a lot of interest among enterprises in ITIL for IT service
management, which I'm guessing would overlap the FCAPS framework.
s/a lot of interest/we want to sell/
Ray Plzak wrote:
... This is a valuable discussion but to a large extent
the efforts can be considered as a non input into the working group as the
discussion is not on their mail list. The IETF works best when people
directly contribute to the discussion and consensus building process. I
--On tisdag 9 november 2004 16.32 + Alex Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 09 November 2004 11:09 -0500 Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to believe if the code can do IPv4-IPv6
NAT
I want to see IPv4-IPv4 NAT working first...
With sufficent thrust, pigs fly just fine.
--On måndag 8 november 2004 17.18 -0600 Adi Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC1918 addresses are perfect.
My AFS, Kerberos, and active FTP sessions think that you are being very,
very optimistic about the usability of non-unique adresses and kludgy
middleboxen who think they understand
I agree that there's alot of interest in ITIL but I'm not so sure it offers
a conceptual model that
makes sense of network management. ITIL is more generic that FCAPS so it
would be
like describing scientific method in terms of Aristotle's concepts of
form and matter. Bad analogy?
The
First of all, as one of the proponents of ULAs in the IPv6 WG, I want to
emphatically state that enabling IPv6 NAT was not the justification for
ULAs. It might make doing so easier, which is unfortunate, but there are
lots of other reasons that justify their creation and not creating ULAs is
since this is a few days late on the conversation someone might have said
this but
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 8-nov-04, at 23:15, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Well, if they can manage to interconnect all those networks a tiny
amount of coordination isn't too much to ask
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
let me make sure i understand this. in order not to have to
pay for the address space for a my enterprise's printers,
they are supposed to make separate ether runs to them
parallel to all
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:51:10AM +0200, Hank
Nussbacher wrote:
Perhaps Nokia wants to make cellphones with a fixed IPv6 number - as it
leaves the factory? -Hank
However, if you can get addresses for free, and they are
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. -
Simon J. Lyall.
Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose not to.
We receive a
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. -
Simon J. Lyall.
Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose
I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :
actually, i think you happen to be one of the maybe 25% of
participants in this discussion that is an actual operator
on a real network. rarer and rarer. :-(
and if
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :
actually, i think you happen to be one of the maybe 25% of
participants in this discussion that is an actual operator
on a
24 matches
Mail list logo
