On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> Amen!
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>>
>> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
>> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
>> is make it work
> Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the
> network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it,
> or
> /80 - /96 for the rest of us)
Why do you feel it's a poor decision to assign /64's to individual LANs?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
The idea was to observe and measure an (almost) all IPv4 network and
its management/infrastructure costs, namely the one we got, not an
IPv6 one, before the transition starts to muddy the waters
significantly.
-b
On October 22, 2010 at 18:03 bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
(bmann...@vacation.k
Amen!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
> is make it work like IPv4.
>
>
I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and
Hello,
For your information :
http://www.nocproject.org
NOC is an Operation Support System (OSS) for the Telco, Service
provider and Enterprise Network Operation Centers (NOC).
Written using Python language and utilizing the power of Django
framework and PosgtreSQL database.
NOC is open source a
Hi all,
the replication point is a good one, I did not think about that. However, I
still believe that on the road to v6 adoption, databases are far from being
our most pressing roadblock.
Thanks all!
Carlos
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
> Only to you.
> on 10/22/201
On Oct 23, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
routers
are cre
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:42:41 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >> Actually, it's not pointless at all. The RA system assumes that all routers
> >> capable of announcing RAs are default routers and that virtually all
> >> routers
> >> are created equal (yes, you have high/medium/low, but, really,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2010, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Just for grins, let's put some rough math to that assertion. The
>> average percentage of the Internet reached by a ULA or RFC1918 leak
>> will be close to:
>>
>> (1-A)^B
>>
>> A = the prob
On 10/23/2010 2:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, deliberate routing of ULA will start small and slowly spread
over time like a slow-growing cancer. You won't even really detect it
until it has metastasized to such an extent that nothing can be done
about it.
Which is why all v6 templates real
On Oct 22, 2010, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:25 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/21/10 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM
11 matches
Mail list logo
