>You can register on-line for the social event at:
>http://files.aon.at/ietf/payment.htm
what kind of social event will it be? there's no hints given.
is it a surprise party?
itojun
prominent place?
ftp.itojun.org:~ftp/pub/paper has 06.
itojun
t;business models.
my guess is that DoS/abuse possibility is very similar to that of
6to4 relay routers, or even worse (as multicast-last-mile creates
state while 6to4 relay router does not).
itojun
draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt does not have IPR clause on it,
even though cisco claims to have patent related to it.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec.txt
itojun
Regards,
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, on behalf of IAB ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ipv6 and other wg mailing list have switched over to mailman, which
is good. however, i don't remember being informed of password to
be used to control my mailman settings. am i missing something?
itojun
>Lest someone get a nasty surprise by believing everything you read
>on the Internet, if you are staying in the IETF hotel, click through
>from the IETF meeting accommodation page, follow the instructions
>to find the Lotte Seoul, click "rooms" and then "standard and deluxe
>rooms". There you will
(sorry if you are not in Washington DC)
I'm seeing bogus icmpv4 sredirect sent from 130.128.22.233. who is it?
itojun
36 bytes from 130.128.22.233: Redirect Host New router addr: 130.128.20.1 for
icmp_seq=202
rhaps IANA, setting up one
>provider-sized block of addresses for early adopters to USE.
how about this? i will soon be submitting this to i-d editor.
itojun
Internet Engineering Task Force Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
INTERNET-DRAFT II
need to put enough warning as we will have major trouble
if the address leaks out to IPv6 worldwide network (just like
IPv4 private address leakage).
>How is this different from a completely-disconnected site using
>a randomly selected prefix?
see above.
itojun
o, migrate to IPv6. you will be happier.
itojun
be better if there's some mention about it, otherwise
people will start yell about this :-)
itojun
1 wireless segment
and laptop (ethernet) segment. Details and instructions will be
available at http://www.kame.net/ietf50/. Bring your IPv6-ready
laptops to the venue!
itojun
riants),
try to catch IPv6 guys in term room or other places.
itojun
ly-available player implementations
(and URL) it would be really nice.
itojun
a list of freely-available player implementations
> (and URL) it would be really nice.
NOTE: I'm not advocating *.ppt in any way.
my personal preference go to Magicpoint (obviously) :-)
itojun
sorry for wide distribution.
at IETF51, will there be an officially-supported IPv6 network?
if not, who will be in charge for IETF51 network? (i'd like to help).
itojun
Hello. are there plans to deploy IPv6 into the terminal cluster
network at IETF52 (salt lake city)? if not, I would like to help out
and configure it. who will be hosting this time?
itojun
IPv6 configuration info for IETF52 term room/wireless can be found at:
http://www.kame.net/ietf52/
questions should be routed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] thanks!
itojun
IPv6 is enabled on room taps too. Enjoy! (thanks for juniper guys!)
itojun@staying in little america...
and VISA issues, contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hope to see you all soon in Yokohama, have a nice flight.
itojun
u fly.
(note: I don't mean to recommend any of rental companies, and
I don't have any info on which is good/bad)
itojun
se it:
- Get a ticket for Green car (first class) instead of economy class.
- you have to visit http://www.nex.v6pc.jp/en/ for sort-of
authentiation/authorization.
itojun
t the problem down for the former.
itojun
ost of
>them are active so more ap's can result in better localized performance,
>assuming you get a handle on the rf issue.
maybe at IETF55, should we invite 802.11b experts to measure behaviors,
expreiment with basestation placement, and such?
itojun
how come there's no IPv6 on the "IETF61" network? i'm happy to help
it get installed, so contact me if you need any help >noc people
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
i'm wondering about IPv6 connectivity at chicago IETF69. if any
of you have hints about it, please drop me a note. if there's no
plan for IPv6, i'd be more than happy to help out, as always.
itojun
___
Ietf ma
distribution)
- Nokia Symbian phones (Bob will tell you more about it)
- Windows Vista
- Windows XP SP2 with "ipv6 install" command
if you still are using Windows Me/98/95, you should really upgrade,
since there's no security patch
tranlators like NAT-PT or RFC3142. their scalability is no worse
than IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ke sense to have the time to cut over to pure ipv6 be when production use
> of ipv4 becomes minimal?
maybe we can have the default "IETF61" SSID be pro-IPv6, and SSID
"legacy" be IPv4-only :-P
itojun
___
Ietf maili
ction network doesn't use IPv4 NAT at all.
you are in ARIN region so you are enjoying vast amount of IPv4 address
space... come to APNIC region or LACNIC region to experience the pain.
i pay $300/mo for PA /29, and it is a real bargain.
itojun
_
ore kinds of
> applications than the NATted IPv4 does today.
i tend to agree, but in rfc-index.txt i could not find the change of
state to "Historic". what happend to very similar (and much more evil
IMHO) transition
coverage...
you right. we have been running dual stack network since 1998 or
something (Marc Blanchet should have the real answer), and we even
supplied IPv6-to-IPv4 translators, so there should be no problem at
all.
I can bring in IPv
> At 1:56 AM +0900 7/2/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > > NAT-PT really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. It provides
> >> all of the disadvantages of IPv4+NAT with all of the transition costs of
> >> IPv6. If there is ever any significant p
t that part.]
i cannot agree more.
maybe it is time to revisit draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt?
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
stems ("fire suit" in the old terminology), but,
if your end node operating systems are secure by default, you do not
need those end node firewall systems and/or keep upgrading signature
files.
http://www.openbsd.org/
> > The IETF network is not, and never has been, for experimentation,
> > showing off new technology, or making political statements. Please keep
> > it that way.
>
> +1
RFC1883 is not new.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing
are, there is almost no real reason to raise the price for
IPv6 support.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ity controls that make it very much harder for an
> attacker to succeed.
if you install secure OSes to the end clients, you do not have to
worry about the infection by worms almost forever. you just need to
adjust youself to use MagicPoint instead of PowerPoint, and use
vi/roff/TeX instead of MS Word.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
use implementers have been polite enough
not to enable IPv6 transition technologies like Teredo or 6to4 on by
default. maybe we should think it over?
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ansition technologies like Teredo or 6to4 on by
>> default. maybe we should think it over?
>word I hear is that Vista's enabling of such technologies is causing
>problems for enterprise networks because their traffic filters and
>intrusion detectors aren't set up to handle
th IPv6 enabled by default since 10.2 (or 10.3?)
timeframe, and from WWDC2007 comment by Steve Jobs there are 22 million
machines which runs 10.2 and beyond, so there are 22 million IPv6
enabled machines.
MacOS X is good, it is basically having Macintosh Aqua GUI on
> so, Apple is not slacking and KAME/*BSD are not too.
for the record, I do not get paid from Apple, just yet :-P
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
trol enabled for
> 6to4-based IPv6 for the particular base station i've associated with:-P
I have no idea where the IPv4 access blocking was implemented.
I could not single out the issue or find workarounds, because I had
IPv6 access
no cache I suppose, or cache
entries are associated with the information source DNS server.
I have no idea about Microsoft OSes nor Linux.
itojun
| IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel (MTU = 1280)
garlic.itojun.org coconut.itojun.org
|2
;m not too sure about the latter two in IPv6. maybe we should ask
NTT and IIJ email ops division about this.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ese
pages only.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ssh first-time contact weak authentication)
you now know which RFC i do not really love :-P
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ional IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT as we have an escape
plan (use native IPv6).
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
f weeks ago i got an IPv6-only wireless
network which works just fine for me. the only applications that does
not go through it are:
- Skype (MacOS X)
- Software Update (MacOS X)
- .Mac Sync (MacOS X)
- NFS (any
rely IPv6 than to write one that supports both.
you have to. you cannot be that lazy. or .Net framework (Windows) or
CFNetwork (MacOS X) can handle it for you inside the library.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/(A183180(B
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or
> > CFNetwork (MacOS X) can handle it for you inside the library.
> >
> only if you want your application to be crippled in other ways. (my, you
> have a simplistic view of the application world!)
??? i do not get your point. you would like to be lazy, then use
libraries that are based on URLs. otherwise, you have to use
getaddrinfo(3). other than that, either your design is broken or
you are lazy.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
i'm very tired of those mole-hunting games, so i concentrated some
opinions onto a set of webpages.
http://ipv6samurais.com/ipv6samurais/demystified/
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/ma
implistic view of the application world!
you did not give me the details, so i have to guessing.
the last note. i guess i have a clear idea about how to make Skype
dual stack. current Skype protocol is totally IPv4-only (see "silver
needle in skype" paper), but i can make it dual stack, i mean,
mixture of IPv4-only, IPv4/v6 dual stack and IPv6-only.
if you are the IPv6 guy in Skype, we need to talk :-)
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ome of those nodes are IPv4 only and others are IPv6 only.
>
> > if you are the IPv6 guy in Skype, we need to talk :-)
> >
> yeah, I think I see how to make Skype dual stack too, since they already
> have the infrastructure needed to relay packets between two nodes that
> are both behind NAT - they could use the same kind of infrastructure to
> relay packets between v4 and v6 realms. but I'm not the ipv6 guy in
> Skype. :)
so i can solve problem for Skype, so i guess i can solve problem for
your "distributed computation system". want to hire a consultant? :-P
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
y new distributed application) to handle
> multiple realms. NATs have drastically raised the burden on
> applications by dividing the Internet up into multiple address realms;
> similarly, IPv4/IPv6 coexistence also divides the Internet up into
&
kjump_page=3&PHPSESSID=0be4b41bcaa11ad9eb49adb3bd9c61d5
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
/www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/index.html
>
> hope to cu there
would love to attend, if someone can take care of my flight :-)
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
s two independent interoperable implementation
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
bility, and so
> forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there
> were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network.
> It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure.
tend to agree. how about &qu
o instead of
>writing a draft?
you can implement test tools which would scan and probe vulnerabilities.
like "dsniff".
itojun
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.
s again and again, and/or the amount of addresses
would affect the address allocation policy towards the customer network
subnets.
so, i would like to say "do not do this". is it too late or still
possible?
itojun
__
URL so that i can check the entire dicussions,
conclusions and status?
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ination box with ethernet and wifi interface to
customers. naturally these interfaces should be configurd as
seaprate subnets (especially when MTU are different - like 9K MTU GbE),
nd they can be configured by ISPs before the box gets shipped.
itojun
ind it convenient
> to use NAT between my site/house/office and my upstream provider.
ks. i wouldn't re-start this religious war, but i just can
mention that (1) NAT is a single point of failure, and (2) NAT is
not fu
failed within the IEEE 802.
ok, then pls think about FDDI-to-ethernet bridge (i guess it is also
spec conformant but there are products), and/or 802.11 bridges.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
have
> >consistently failed within the IEEE 802.
>
> ok, then pls think about FDDI-to-ethernet bridge (i guess it is also
> spec conformant but there are products), and/or 802.11 bridges.
non-conformant, of course :-)
itojun
___
> what we really need is a layer of indirection at the BGP level so that
> sites can have stable addresses without having to NAT.
we should rather drop "stable address" requirement by having session
layer protocol (something better th
like to comment on this topic should better have
real experience in assigning prefixes to the customers :-P
itojun
# ipv6samurais.com: saving the world with code and sword
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
he internet infrastructure should keep options open for the other
industry player to play with.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ould have to renumber entire
subnet portion to fit into 8 bits, from 16 bits. imagine how
painful it is, and imagine how it will constrain people from
exiting from 6to4 addresses to real IPv6 addresses.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing lis
i repeat: voice your opinions AFTER you start using IPv6 daily.
i'm tired of this guessing games by people in ivory tower.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> i repeat: voice your opinions AFTER you start using IPv6 daily.
> i'm tired of this guessing games by people in ivory tower.
To: field was wrong. "your" was general "you".
itojun
___
Ietf mailing
k. i bet others too (Verio, Internet2, anyone?)
it is not economical to run two separate physical link across the
pacific ocean.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
device do authenticate properly with each other, you can just
use IPv6 prefixes from local ISPs (PAs).
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ody in the ietf intelligensia
> > supports the proposal. the showstopped is that this appears to many as
> > an end-run around PI, and the fear is that there's no way to prevent it
because, in the end, ULA (whichever flavor it
p things flat, i.e. pure routing.
>
> itojun, let's just stop using the 3 letters word. It does not exist
> anymore.
is it ULA, NAT, VPN or all of them :-)
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
de/whatever, use ssh secret key, X509
certs, and alike. IP address is just to specify communication endpoint,
nothing else.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ver got any reasonable answer from anyone.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> not willing to buy into vendor lock.
if the management needs to be convinced by the cost, i would suggest
ISPs to price PI advertisement like hell ($$$), so that we can make
the worldwide routing table smaller.
it will help ISPs use smaller
igger size of the routing table)
- vocal people are not using IPv6 daily
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
mp;PHPSESSID=7cf26a35a9ca3e0428f610587232e21b
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> We have more than enough IPv4 addresses for China.
no way.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
semantics:
do not try to implement policy into applications. you will end up
forced to (?) rewrite every existing applications.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
it can be application-specific, without application modification.
check out "systrace" by Niels Provos.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
cies.
i wonder how many command line options will be added to the
applications once you start adding up policy stuff... sendmail.cf
lookalike for every apps?
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
epends on your glibc version. As far as I
> remember, RFC3484 was implemented in version 2.4. Configurable policy in
> version 2.5, and Teredo in the default policy only very recently.
this really shows that the approaches with policy table is very against
of KISS princi
ingual (english/japanese).
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
hrough the same code is irrelevant
> to the externally observed behavior.
see draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06.txt section 2.2.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >> Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view.
> >> Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given
> >> an address like :::192.0.2.3
> >> afaik the behavior is then exactly wh
for the entire planet)
for me, IPv6 itself is attractive enough (that's why i'm putting so
much time on it). if it can lose some of the extra meat which makes
it a little bit more complex than it should be, it would be super.
itojun
types like sa_family_t are defined in , and they
need not be/shall not be from .
please update RFC3678 so that it will fit better with POSIX standard.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
from
, why freebsd did not do that and defined sockaddr_storage
in two places? my guess is that it was a too big change to be
accepted (way too much interaction with existing code).
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/neti
some other platforms. do you have any
information about when the clause was introduced? was it with
the use of sockaddr_storage?
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
on the topic and produce an RFC
- let me handle the document as an individual submission and publish
it as an RFC
thanks.
itojun
--- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
y avoiding core
details, so KAME would integrate that eventually.
itojun
--- KAME IPR policy
9. Policy on technology with intellectual property right restriction
There are quite a few IETF documents/whatever which has intellectual property
right (IPR) restriction. KAME's stance is st
ny of
you have suggestion please drop me a note. tnx.
itojun
IPv6 is ready and runinng at IETF venue. see http://www.kame.net/ietf48/ for
detailed info. you just need to use autoconfiguration, that's all.
itojun
we will remove IPv6 router at the venue around 11:30. thanks.
itojun
spams, filtering inbound SMTP should be enough.
itojun
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
