On 11/24/12, John Adams wrote:
> Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP is
> not the place for this sort of header.
IP is the logical place for this kind of header, as this information
is node dependent, not application dependent.
It would be useful for identif
On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client
OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffi
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client
OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6 traffic today
is unintentional.
I see major privacy issues with this. Why introduce more intelligence
which WILL eventually be used for more intrusion into the private lives of
all of us? I don't particularly care for "smart" ads and three like..
On Nov 24, 2012 9:37 AM, "Ammar Salih" wrote:
> Dears, I've proposed a new IPv6
On 11/20/12 7:32 AM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100
Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It seems that today is a "big day" for IPv6. It is the very first
time when native IPv6 on google statistics
(http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) reached
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/22/12 06:59, Ammar Salih wrote:
> Dears, I've proposed a new IPv6 "extension header", it's now posted on IETF
> website, your ideas and comments are most welcome!
In a number of jurisdictions and particularly in the EU, IP addresses
themselves (
On 11/21/12, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Wait it out as in - you had better examine your mail queues and purge them
> of any of the spam that was sent and is still queued up.
>
> It'll still take a day or two after that's done for the blocks to subside.
The majority of blocking should in most
Im just going to come out and say this. This is a gigantic invasion of privacy
and a really bad idea.
- Original Message -
> From: "Ammar Salih"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:59:59 AM
> Subject: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
>
> Dears, I've proposed
On Nov 24, 2012, at 22:18, John Adams wrote:
> If there's a place where I can go and vote this down / debate it away, tell
> me where that is.
Not needed.
It already has been completely shredded at the relevant IETF mailing lists,
geopriv and ipv6 (6man WG).
I have no idea why Ammar isn't lis
It seems to me that there's a big problem with using this for rights
enforcement.
If the header is added by the user's device, then on certain operating
systems it will be trivial for the user to set this to whatever they want
it to be - which would defeat the purpose.
If the header is added by de
Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP is
not the place for this sort of header.
This is not data that should be sent on every packet. It becomes redundant.
Not to mention the serious privacy concerns such a header brings up in the
protocol. You barely address th
Dears, I've proposed a new IPv6 "extension header", it's now posted on IETF
website, your ideas and comments are most welcome!
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-add-location-to-ipv6-header/?include_t
ext=1
Thanks!
Ammar Salih
On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Dave Sotnick wrote:
> Also had reports that we're still seeing bounces to Gmail, Comcast and
> Yahoo accounts.
The best thing to do is to go ahead and look at the bounce messages from the
various ISP's, and see if they have any instructions or URL's to contact.
If
13 matches
Mail list logo
