On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Daniel Senie wrote:
> BTW, thanks for bringing this thread back to the question of creating
> demand for IPv6. There's plenty of anti-NAT activity on other
> threads. Some constructive discussion over ways to create incentives
> to deploy IPv6 is worthwhile. The most common
On 10/4/07, Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the 6 hour sampling, I have to assume that there have been
> other short term re-appearances of routes to Burma.
> Whether this is due to internal struggles, accidents, or urgent needs
> for data transfer I cannot say.
I believe the
At 08:04 PM 10/3/2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only
killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought
about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality.
What occur
There have been several news stories today about Myanmar's government
turning off the country's Internet connectivity to suppress news coming
out of the country (for instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/asia/04info.html?ref=world).
Doing some poking at it earlier today, here's wh
On 4/10/2007, at 12:24 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did not change anything on that page, either. For the
record, that's because I have a screaming two-year-old trying
to use me as a climbing wall right now.
My 10 month-old is soundly sleeping right now so I incorpora
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As mentioned, 6to4 doesn't do what you seem to think it does.
> > Its not a solution to the problem of IPv6 endpoints trying to
> > talk to IPv4 endpoints.
>
> I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what
> is w
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you care to wager, I'll take some of that action. Without
> > a relatively transparent mechanism for IPv6-only hosts to
> > access IPv4-only sites this isn't going to happen. We don't
> > have such a mechanism built and won't have it
At 04:07 PM 10/2/2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.
O re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Abley) wrote:
> 6to4 (for content- or access-focussed networks) is surely a solution
> to the problem of "I have no good way to acquire IPv6 transit";
It solves another problem as well, like "I cannot go v6 to
my servers because my load balancing and packet filtering
bla
> > It isn't that simple. The fact that NAT exists and is seen as useful
> > by many people (whether or not they are even aware of it) means
> > services and applications need to be aware of it.
>
> This is a hidden cost of NAT. Why hack many applications to work around
> a network layer pro
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, if there was a reasonable translation mechanism
> > available which allowed IPv6-only end systems to access
> > IPv4-only content, I think the picture would look quite
> > different.
>
> Doesn't deploying a 6to4 relay in the con
On 10/3/07, Mark Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The value of network perimeterisation as a security measure, of which
> NAT is a method, is being questioned significantly by network security
> people.
Mark,
The discussion at hand is whether the absence of NAT creates a drag on
IPv6 deploymen
12 matches
Mail list logo
