> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> I don't have to. I'm sure some AG will do so soon enough.
There's always an optimist around.
Good luck with that.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
In message <56157950.5040...@lugosys.com>, "Israel G. Lugo" writes:
>
> On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > So a /48 isnât about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856
> > devic
> es in every home, itâs about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask to
> use
> in del
We know. I recommend you read the whole thread before reacting.
-mel beckman
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>>
>> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to
>> support any other mandat
In message <520ce953-012c-4599-a85b-69517e090...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman w
rites:
>>
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>> In message , Matthew
>> Kaufman w
>> rites:
>>>
>>>
On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Instead, the follow
Here is a quick starting point for filtering IPv6 on a Linux host system if
you don't feel comfortable opening up all ICMPv6 traffic:
http://soucy.org/tmp/v6firewall/ip6tables.txt
I haven't really re-visited it in a while, so if I'm forgetting something
let me know.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:13 A
On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856
> devices in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask
> to use in delegating addresses in a dynamic plug-and-play hierarchical
> topology that can evolve o
>Using the link-level address to distinguish between good and bad email
>content was always daunting at best. Thanks for pointing out that this
>flawed behaviour must cease.
I don't know anyone who does that. But I know a lot of people who use
both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to distinguish among "ha
Folks -
Apologies for the distraction, but the revised RSA/LRSA is out, and it
addresses some of the concerns raised in this community. See attached
announcement for details.
/John
Begin forwarded message:
From: ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>>
Date: October 7, 2015 at 11:31:49 AM GMT-4
To: ma
On 2/Oct/15 07:46, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> I suspect this is OSX implementing IPv6 Privacy Extensions. Where OSX
> generates a new random IPv6 address, applies it to the interface, and then
> drops the old IPv6 addresses as they stale out. Sessions in use or not.
>
> sudo sysctl -w net.inet6.ip6.
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message , Matthew Kaufman
> w
> rites:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g
>> =
>> reat, but how does that
On Wednesday, 7 October, 2015 12:54, "Owen DeLong" said:
> There are some important differences for ICMP (don’t break PMTU-D or ND),
> but otherwise, really not much difference between your IPv4 security policy
> and
> your IPv6 security policy.
The IPv4 world would have been nicer without quit
On 10/07/2015 06:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how
does that help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an
IPv4 address?”
At the present time, a web site that doesn't ha
On 7 Oct 2015, at 9:29, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but
how does that help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and
can’t get an IPv4 address?”
At the present time, a web site that doesn't h
In message , Matthew Kaufman w
rites:
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Instead, the followup question is needed=E2=80=A6 =E2=80=9CThat=E2=80=99s g
> =
> reat, but how does that help me reach a web site that doesn=E2=80=99t have a=
> nd can=E2=80=99
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that
>> help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?”
>>
>> Owen
>>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>
> Instead, the followup question is needed… “That’s great, but how does that
> help me reach a web site that doesn’t have and can’t get an IPv4 address?”
>
> Owen
>
At the present time, a web site that doesn't have and can't get an IP
This is excellent feedback, thank you.
On 10/07/2015 04:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
My bookshelf is full of books describing IPv4. Saying "IPv6 just
works" ignores the issues of configuring intelligent firewalls to block
the ne-er-do-wells us
They introduced themselves via SPAM recently… They’ve been plonked as a result.
Owen
> On Oct 4, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
>
>> I am running a DOCSIS network that has a noisy cable plant. I want to be
>> able to substantiate and quan
Memory footprint is still an issue in lots of things like ESP8266 (which
doesn’t yet support IPv6, but hopefully will soon).
Not everything is a cell phone or larger. There are lots of cool new things
coming out in the SoC world where you’ve got a micro controller, GPIOs, CAN,
SPI, WiFi, and mo
El 10/7/2015 a las 12:50 AM, Enno Rey escribió:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:59:14PM -0430, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> Hello,
>> This is a question a should test myself but anyhow I would like to
>> hear your comments.
>> What happen (on the client side/Android maybe) if I advertise th
> On Oct 4, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
>> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to
>> support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA.
>
> Go tell cisco that. IIRC, the first network I dual-stac
> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> If it doesn't support IPSec, it's not really IPv6. Just as if it failed to
> support any other mandatory IPv6 specification, such as RA.
Not true. IPSec is recommended, not mandatory.
This change was made in favor of resource constrained n
> On Oct 4, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 10/04/2015 06:40 AM, Matthias Leisi wrote:
>> Fully agree. But the current state of IPv6 outside "professional“
>> networks/devices is sincerely limited by a lot of poor CPE and
>> consumer device implementations.
>
> I have to ask:
23 matches
Mail list logo
