sometime its said you shouldn't feed the trolls but right now I think
its necessary todo so. Could you please stop posting all of this
nonsens on this list? So please take your private problems elsewhere.
--
Roger Jorgensen |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key!
...
___
On 8/6/07, Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
> > We cannot afford to indulge in faith based planning here.
>
> A question. Is anyone trying to mitigate effects of the End of Time in
> any other way than by working on IPv6?
why bother when IPv6 are ready an
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> LIR's may assign blocks in the range of /48 to /64 to end sites.
> All assignments made by LIR's should meet a minimum HD-Ratio of .25.
>
> * /64 - Site needing only a single subnet.
> * /60 - Site with 2-3 subnets initially.
> * /56 - Site with 4-7
On 8/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know the reasons behind the /48 etc but it just going to
> > cause us trouble to keep it like that, we should divide the
> > /48 cateogry of users into two:
> > - people that can get the current /48 as long as they have
> > more than ON
On 8/21/07, Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> >
> > I am fully aware of that it will very likely be more than one subnet at some
> > point, that is why the last paragraph was included. Anyway, the important
> > point is that we p
On 8/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No reason to attack him like you did and I specifically want to address
> this because mailing lists have a much larger audience than their
> participants. If such attacks are not answered it creates barriers for
> new blood to enter into
On 8/24/07, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you obtain address space from a service provider and you decide to
> change providers, you have (in most cases) two options: renumber or
> deploy NAT. It is a simple cost/benefit tradeoff, with the costs
> impacting software and protocol dev
On 8/24/07, Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nice idea, but I'm fairly convinced that it's impractical. there are
> just too many interfaces, many of them nonstandard and application
> specific, that need to know about IP addresses.
>
> maybe we could come up with a 90% solution, but that
On 8/29/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that we will find that there are 2 sets of user. Most users will
> never subnet at all and be entirely happy with a /64.
just ONE /64 will almost never be enough. The reason are quite simple,
almost all types of connection req
On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which
> i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
> and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them
> supports the proposal)
On 9/13/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which
> > > i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
> > > and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them
> > >
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
> WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
> - 'LISP EID Block'
>as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> fi
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
> WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
> - 'LISP EID Block'
>as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> fi
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Make it an allocation for EIDs and ILNP can use it too.
Somehow I hear a voice in the back of my head asking if we're talking
about starting to use another big IPv6 block than 2000::/3 for the two
above mention usage?
2000::/3 for our cur
changed the subject ... and added a cc to some that might not follow ietf@
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger wrote:
>> There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I
>> think is true, but we should consider the
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 3/18/13 6:04 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>>
>> I am wondering if the draft should mention that Local Internet
>> Registries (LIRs) may sometimes take the form of National Internet
>> Registries (NIRs) since this is now a reality in some places?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> In the scope of things, wh does having one of out of the many needed tools
> make
> IPv6 different than IPv4, especially given that the indicated tool is present
> in both
> IPv4 and IPv6 implementations?
>
> Scratch-a-my-head. I don't see i
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>> Its 'rough' consensus...
>> I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
>> publication asap please.
>
> I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> The bottom line: unless I am force to support IPv6, stack or no stack, the
> investment required isn't going to happen soon.
You got an options now, how, when and where you want to go with IPv6,
wait a few years until all you communicate wi
A bit late since this threat will be moderated soon. But I strongly object
to this delay of needed action.
I guess the other way the problem, which will hurt muchmuch more is maybe to
considering a filter of 6to4 on isp level?
I will suggest it when we start deploying native ipv6.
--- Roger J. --
at 9:32 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> A bit late since this threat will be moderated soon. But I strongly object
> to this delay of needed action.
>
> I guess the other way the problem, which will hurt muchmuch more is maybe to
> considering a filter of 6to4 on isp level?
> I will
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 11:38 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> The opportunity for restoring e2e is one of the great opportunities of
>> ipv6
>
> This assumes that e2e reachability is a desired property for all networks.
A very good point, there are a fe
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/16/2011 07:02, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Friday, July 15, 2011 15:39 -0700 Doug Barton
>> wrote:
>> But, while some people have argued that 6to4 has caused so much
>> damage by being misconfigured that it should, presumably as
>> pu
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> After some discussion, the IESG is attempting to determine whether there is
> IETF consensus to do the following:
>
> - add a new section to draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
> - publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic as INFORM
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:07 PM, John Mann (ITS) wrote:
> [ And that native dual-stack is a replacement for both. ]
> We want normal users to move past "experimental IPv6" towards "production
> IPv6".
Exactly, we should focus on doing production IPv6, not wasting our
time on something that run
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Michel Py
wrote:
> Ole,
>> Ole Troan wrote:
>> I presume you are arguing that MPLS (6PE) is not native either?
> That's a tough one.
>
> What would make me say it is native is: MPLS is a L2/switching animal,
> not a L3/routing one. In theory you can bind any L3 pro
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/2011 10:47 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>> It was also very
>> difficult to make a full determination, because a lot of the discussion
>> has been
>> on tangential topics, because in many cases it has been hard to see if a
>> person
>>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
I still do not understand the basic problem that trigger/cause that propsal.
Have been alot of discu
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 2011-09-21 05:44, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their
>> meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement.
>>
>> (so yes, I agree with this line of
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> And that helps identify a third risk. How relevant it is
> depends on one's perspective and understanding of reality but
> that risk is:
>
> 3) People will conclude that these various kludges are
> actually medium-term solut
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This allocation cannot be made without IETF consensus. Publication on the
> Independent Stream does not reflect IETF consensus. Therefore, publication on
> the Independent Stream wouldn't enable the allocation.
Sorry, or maybe
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> FWIW, given that the IAB has chosen to not uphold the principle of
> subsidiarity and let this thing be done at the lowest possible level in the
> decision hierarchy, I hold with the people who argue that allocating this
> /10 is less ha
On Dec 5, 2011 7:48 PM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 15:06, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > By contrast, further discussion of the following topics would not help
the IESG gauge consensus:
>
>
> Agreed. The bottom line here is that if we remove ourselves from the
> religious/pol
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this
> draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the
> draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added
> later.)
>
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> SM,
>
> At NANOG 54, ARIN reported that they are down to 5.6 /8s. If just four ISPs
> ask for a /10 for CGN, we burn one of those /8s.
>
> Is that really a good idea?
It's not about good or bad idea, it should be more about; If they can
just
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44:42PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> This is only about allocating a chunk of address space.
>
> For which there is better use than prolonging bad technical solutions.
>
> Address translation has set the state of
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 13:34, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> > From: Nilsson
>>
>> > there _is_ a cost, the cost of not being able to allocate unique
>> > address space when there is a more legitimate need than the proposed
>> > wasting of an e
Sorry Noel but I choice to reply public to this one.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > IPv6 is The Key!
>
> If you think denying a CGN block will do anything at all to help IPv6,
> you're very confused.
quote out of context etc... but my change of mind from supporting
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Sure, that's very common, but these devices are consumer electronics and
>> will get gradually replaced by IPv6-supporting boxes as time goes on.
>
> The problem is that IPv6 specification is still broken in
> se
not replying specific to this mail but to the tons that have arrived
lately, are there some confusion out there that it is the amount of
"votes" on ietf@ that make a do/do not on a draft? ... or just me
missunderstanding this?
anyway, great to see people participate :-)
--- Roger J ---
On Tue,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I think that an endorsement like "I work for Cisco and we intend to implement
> this in every one of our products" is useful. But it's not nearly as useful
> as "this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from ever
> gaining tra
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:22:04AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
>> CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
>> OriginAS:
>> NetName: SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
>
> GOOD.
>
> Now I
On 3 Aug 2013 11:14, "Ole Jacobsen (ole)" wrote:
>
> It was never a distraction until AB started complaining about it. Been
serving a useful purpose for many, many years. Procmail is your friend.
>
+1 for that
--- Roger ---
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> http://cisco.com/ipj
>
> Sent f
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adam Novak wrote:
>
> One way to frustrate this sort of dragnet surveillance would be to reduce
> centralization in the Internet's architecture. Right now, the way the
> Internet works in practice for private individuals, all your traffic goes up
> one pipe to your
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Scott Brim
>
> > The encapsulation is not much of an obstacle to packet examination.
>
> There was actually a proposal a couple of weeks back in the WG to encrypt all
> traffic on the inter-xTR stage.
>
> The win in doing it in
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?=
>
> > The userbase and deployment are relative small atm so it's doable to
> > get fast deployment to.
>
> Alas, now that I think about the practicalities I don't think the average
> r
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> I got my arm slightly twisted to produce the attached: a simple
> concatenation of some of the actionable suggestions made in the
> discussion of PRISM and Bruce Schneier's call for action.
There are one thing I don't see mention in your
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 09/21/2013 02:42 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> There are one thing I don't see mention in your draft, the discussion
>> that moved from ietf@ and over into lisp@ about encryption by default
>>
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Note that decentralising makes you less anonymous. If everyone runs
> their own jabber service with TLS and OTR, you are less anonymous than
> today. So "decentralising" is not a solution on its own for meta-data
> tracking.
When I'm talking
49 matches
Mail list logo
