Hi,
We have submitted a new ID.
DHCPv6 Options for Discovery NAT64 Prefixes
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option)
This is an update of a previous work
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-intarea-464xlat-prefix-dhcp-00), which
was considering only the
Hi,
We have submitted a new ID, in order to standardize new DHCPv6 options to allow
the discovery of the IPv6/IPv4 prefixes served by stateful/stateless NAT64
translators (which can be used by SIIT, Stateful NAT64/464XLAT, EAM-SIIT, etc.).
DHCPv6 Options for Discovery NAT64 Prefixes
https://dat
-Mensaje original-
De:
Responder a:
Fecha: lunes, 27 de marzo de 2017, 1:03
Para: Jianping Wu , Cong Liu , Yong
Cui , Lishan Li , Jordi
Palet , Jordi Palet Martinez
, Fred Baker
Asunto: New Version Notification for
draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option-01.txt
A new
Stats are always a reference, but if you look only to a single data set, you
will have a broken view.
Look at the data of the mobile operators in many countries, that only deliver
IPv6 connectivity, such as US, India, few EU countries, now Japan, or even
wireline providers in every continent of
is on your hands now, the decision to publish
it is not my responsibility, but I'm sure a solution will be found for this
problem regardless it will be IPv10 or something else.
Best Regards,
Khaled Omar
-Original Message-
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf
I agree that that was the plan (and it is in the medium term), but my response
is to Khaled specific point that seems to say (I understood that at least) that
only 15% can access (now) to IPv6-only.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: ietf en nombre de
Responder a:
Fecha: domingo
So, you expect that we change the rules for you, or we should change them for
everybody?
Rules have been defined by the community for a good reason.
If we change the rules for everybody, then you should expect thousands of WGs
being created every other day, with no consensus, lot of community t
g] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:31 PM
To: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10.
So, you expect that we change the rules for you, or we should change them
for everybody?
Rules have been defined by the community for a good r
le.
Best regards,
Khaled Omar
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:09 PM
To: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10.
I believe e
-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:29 PM
To: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10.
Respecting people and their time means that before asking once and again
about changing the process
Maybe re-ipng ?
We can start working in the successor of IPv6, so we have now 400-500 years to
develop it and we are not late deploying it when we run out of IPv6 addresses.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Int-area en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu
Responder a:
Fecha: jueves,
messages as well.
However, we dont have a document
"Top 10 reasons why IPv!=[46] is nonsense"
We do have many documents
"Top 10 reasons why IPv4 and IPv6 make sense"
Alex
Le 28/09/2017 à 14:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
ot-10.
On 28/09/2017 14:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I don’t think even in those 500 years, we will run out of IPv6 addresses,
I hope you are right, but:
I am sure that the original IPv4 designers thought that 2^32 was likely
to be an infinity of IP addres
Forwarding private emails in public is an unlawful act (at least in general in
EU is considered “breach of correspondence”).
I’ve doubts of what is the jurisdiction here, if the email receiver’s
countries, if the email sender country, or the country where the IETF email
servers are located, may
I also share bad feelings here ...
Do it natively with IPv6, no mappings, nothing strange. It will also make
possible for existing hardware, to do offload in the chipsets, which I don't
think you're considering.
I also feel really weird that you are writing Ipv6 instead of IPv6, no reason
for
I guess they are missing that this is an stateless NAT64 ?
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Int-area en nombre de Gert Doering
Fecha: martes, 6 de noviembre de 2018, 14:54
Para: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)"
CC: "i...@ietf.org" , "int-area@ietf.org" ,
"i...@ietf.or
Yes, it does.
Actually, just NAT64 alone (with DNS64) can do that.
464XLAT can do that even without DNS64.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 17/9/20 19:58, "Int-area en nombre de Khaled Omar"
escribió:
Excuse me, 464Xlat supports IPv6-ONLY to IPv4-Only communication?
Khaled Omar
n A communicate to B ?
Regards,
Khaled Omar
-Original Message-
From: Int-area On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:01 PM
To: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New
Meeting Session Request
But with 464Xlat , how it works?
Regards,
Khaled Omar
-Original Message-
From: Int-area On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:08 PM
To: int-area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New
Meeting S
+1
El 15/3/22, 21:05, "Int-area en nombre de Brian E Carpenter"
escribió:
Hi,
> Please let us know if you have any questions after reading the
> draft.
I have no questions.
IMHO the draft is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's a
matter of common sense that t
20 matches
Mail list logo
