On Nov 16, 2012 9:27 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote:
>
> Why does any operator have a reason to carr any routes other than their
paying customers? Because it provides connectivity for their customers.
> If we get this block allocaed, then it results in 1 extra routing entry
in the global routing tab
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 17, 2012 9:12 AM, "Noel Chiappa" wrote:
>
> > From: Cameron Byrne
>
> >> If LISP succeeds, this results in significant reduction in core
table
> >> sizes for everyone.
>
> > Not everyone. Only p
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
> On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>>
>> It's Friday. Time to plug IPv6 some more. :-)
>>
>> http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
>>
>> LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solu
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
wrote:
> I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
>
> TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =>
> backoff
> aren't necessarily so in a wireless network, where packets c
On Mar 6, 2013 1:03 AM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2013 08:36, t.p. wrote:
> ...
> > Interesting, there is more life in Congestion Control than I might have
> > thought. But it begs the question, is this something that the IETF
> > should be involved with or is it better handled by t
On Mar 10, 2013 2:05 PM, "Spencer Dawkins"
wrote:
>
> On 3/10/2013 2:50 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>>
>> On 03/10/13 15:43, John Levine allegedly wrote:
- Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the
IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could make a
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, wrote:
>
> > > How much longer does this list need to be to justify choosing better
labels for this v6 dual-stack transition hack?
> >
> > returning different sets of resource records on the basis of the orgin
of a query ala split horizon is not exactly new ground.
> >
>
On Jun 7, 2011 12:16 AM, "Tim Chown" wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> >
> > Do we really need to go through all this again?
> >
> > As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
> > a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays are w
On Jun 12, 2011 6:18 PM, "Michel Py"
wrote:
>
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> If you were to remove 6to4 and 6RD from the
> >> picture, that would set us back 10 years
> >> ago in terms of IPv6 adoption.
>
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> > Can you explain the exact mechanism by which what you're
> > concerned
On Jun 12, 2011 11:26 PM, "Michel Py"
wrote:
>
> > Cameron Byrne wrote:
> > The faint promise of yet another transition mechanism is hardly
> > a motivation to keep 6to4 around. The data (ripe ...)
> > overwhelming proves default-on 6to4 clients + thinly depl
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Brian E Carpenter
>
> > I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
> > list (ietf@ietf.org) because it is very noisy and operators have
> > other priorities.
>
Yes, and this thread is noise. In fa
On Jun 29, 2011 7:19 PM, "Fernando Gont" wrote:
>
> Hi, Jari,
>
> My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to stress
> that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort... however, I
> think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear to me why/how
> typical IPv
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 14:34, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
james woodyatt wrote:
>
> There is
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>>
>> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS
WG and IETF consensus
>>
>> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
>
>
> Great, back
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes barriers
> to REAL ipv6 deployment gets shouted down by a few people not involved in
> REAL ipv6 deploy
On Jul 3, 2011 12:29 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
>
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> IMHO Right now, we need services with native IPv6 based interfaces,
with equivalent performance and equ
On Jul 3, 2011 7:14 AM, "Keith Moore" wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
>
> > In your letter dated Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:53:46 +0200 you wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, in the 20% of the time that it's not working, Google has
no
> >> idea that the user has a 2002::/16 address. G
I, for one, am not interested talking about 6to4 anymore.
On Jul 8, 2011 4:36 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
> On 2011-07-08 19:16, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to
>> drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course preferable return a
>>
I approve of this approach.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Jul 27, 2011 4:32 AM, "Mark Townsley" wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >> Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2, who
On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, "Ted Lemon" wrote:
>>>
>>> If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
>>>
>>> status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
>
>
> This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use
6to4v2 because it works better t
On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> In message <968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com>, Ted Lemon
writes
> :
> > If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
> > status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
>
> Because it will com
On Jul 27, 2011 8:30 AM, "Michel Py"
wrote:
>
> >>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>> Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long
> >>> term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses
> >>> to design a v2, who is going to implement it?
>
> free.fr, which is a third of the worldwide IPv6
On Jul 28, 2011 1:08 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote:
>
> In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:56:51 -0400 you wrote:
> > In the absence of a coherent instruction from IETF for a phase-out
> > plan, declaring this protocol historic under the current proposed
> > language, will do precisely that. P
On Jul 28, 2011 5:28 PM, "Martin Rex" wrote:
>
> Masataka Ohta wrote:
> >
> > > It would be nice if 5 or 10 years ago there would have been a good
> > > standard to do address selection.
> >
> > 11 years ago in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00.txt, I wrote:
> >
> >End systems (hosts) are end syst
On Sep 12, 2011 8:51 PM, "Satoru Matsushima"
wrote:
>
> The introduction in the draft says:
>
>
> > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for
> >IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments
> >utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH t
On Sep 23, 2011 1:41 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
>
> On 2011-09-23 17:21, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> > However, I would like to make sure we don't lose sight of the need
> > for some urgency with draft-weil.
>
> I'm a little puzzled by the claim of urgency; I remember hearing in
> July 2008 t
On Sep 23, 2011 6:20 PM, "Keith Moore" wrote:
>
> I already made one Last Call comment, but I neglected to state
unambiguously whether I supported the proposal.
>
> I do support this proposal.
>
> I think that this question needs to be viewed as a choice between two
risks:
>
> 1) the risks associa
On Sep 24, 2011 8:36 AM, "Benson Schliesser (bschlies)"
wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 20:54, "Cameron Byrne" wrote:
>
>> So if there is going to be breakage, and folks are willing to fix it over
time because the good outweighs the bad (I personally do no
On Sep 26, 2011 6:58 AM, "George, Wes" wrote:
>
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
> To: Cameron Byrne
> Cc: IETF Discussion
>
> Subject: Re: Last Call:
(IANA Reserved IP
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:07 AM, George, Wes wrote:
>
>
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Keith Moore
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
> To: Cameron Byrne
> Cc: IE
On Sep 28, 2011 2:51 AM, "Hui Deng" wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Inline please,
>
> 2011/9/27 Dan Wing
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghu...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
>> > To: Dan Wing
>> > Cc: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com; satoru.matsush
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
>
>>> +1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 sockets and
>>> pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks.
>>>
>>> Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and
>>> network benefit
>
> Frankly
rvers over an IPv6-only network
Cameron
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: behave-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:behave-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of
>> Cameron Byrne
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:12 PM
>> To: Mark Towns
except making
the apps and services IPv6 native on IPv6 native networks, everything
else is a hack and time to market is important ipv4 exhausted.
Cameron
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:14
On Oct 21, 2011 6:07 AM, "George, Wes" wrote:
>
> > From: Andrew Allen [mailto:aal...@rim.com]
> > We can put all kinds of wonderful constraints on hotels if we want to -
> > [snip] - then we will likely never be able to meet anywhere.
> >
> [WEG] I am not suggesting that this be a deal-breaker co
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> In my opinion, having a designated space is better than "squat" space, given
> that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it
> extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows operators
> to k
On Nov 29, 2011 9:46 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> In message , Randy Bush writes:
> > > skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
> > > it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
> > > within a week of this being made available?
> >
> > cool. th
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:41 PM 11/30/11, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
>
>> Ralph,
>>
>> Please note the following report:
>>
>> WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf)
>
> Thanks for the reference. Do you have an easy pointe
I will add one more concern with this allocation.
IPv4 address allocation is a market (supply exceeds demand in this
case), and thus a strategic game (like chess) to gather limited
resources .
We have known for a long time how IPv4 was not an acceptable long term solution.
We have known for a lo
s Space policy for adoption [ARIN-2011-5
> <
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-03#ref
> -ARIN-2011-5>].
>
> This history shows that operators and other industry contributors
> have consistently identified the need for a Shared Transition Spac
Would you take a check for $50 million USD instead of the /10? Sounds like
they are equivalent value.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20111201/BIZ/112010483/1361/Borders-selling-Internet-addresses-for-$786-000
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://w
On Dec 4, 2011 10:40 AM, "Joel jaeggli" wrote:
>
> On 12/4/11 08:48 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > Hi Victor, Yes that helps, thanks - it confirms what I had always
> > assumed was the case but could not grok from the discussions on this
> > list nor the draft.
> >
> > Because the new address space i
On Dec 4, 2011 11:06 AM, "Hadriel Kaplan" wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I know that mobile networks have started going that way - which is
why I asked the question. The reason we (the IETF) cannot possibly pick
the same RFC1918 address space is because those mobile networks now have
the problem I described:
On Dec 4, 2011 7:10 PM, "Chris Donley" wrote:
>
>
> More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
> that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
> the 10 part involves customer service work that those interested in
> deploying CGN would like to a
On Dec 4, 2011 7:24 PM, "Cameron Byrne" wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2011 7:10 PM, "Chris Donley" wrote:
> >
> >
> > More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
> > that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann
wrote:
> On 5 December 2011 04:27, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> [they = the IETF]
>>> they underscored that point by not rejecting various past attempts at
>>> expanding private ipv4 space like 240/4.
>
>> Sorry
On Feb 10, 2012 4:25 PM, "Måns Nilsson" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> > >> This is not about IPv4 life-support.
> > >
> > > Seriously?
> >
> >
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <201202132046.q1dkk1hn020...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex
> writes
> :
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> > > > From: Arturo Servin
>> > >
>> > > >> Are you volunteering
On Feb 14, 2012 7:40 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>
> > Why? They would have needed updated stacks. The routers would
> > have need updated stacks. The servers would have needed updated
> > stacks. The firewalls would have needed updated stacks. The load
> > balancers would have needed updated stacks.
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
Changing the message from "you don't need NAT anywhere" to "sure, you
can use RFC 4193 ULAs, just don't let us see them on
On May 1, 2012 4:08 PM, "Janet P Gunn" wrote:
>
> But that leaves out all of us that started off in a different (technical)
field (Math and OR in my case) and ended up here..
>
Furthermore, is rigorous academic STEM education highly correlated with
whatever it is you are trying to measure ?
CB
52 matches
Mail list logo
