Michael Thomas wrote:
So out of the current discussions a lot of people have claimed that ipv6
is bloated or suffers from second system syndrome, etc.
IPv6 optional header chain, even after it was widely recognized
that IPv4 options are useless/harmful and were deprecated is an
example of IPv6
This is going to be one of the big things the US Federal govt requirements
for agencies to meet the IPv6-only benchmarks will need. Solutions and
products are going to have to mature quickly for agencies to hit 80%
IPv6-only by end of FY25.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 4:38 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG
wr
> On Mar 20, 2022, at 07:17, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe
> wrote:
>
> It seems sketchy to me to even retain client MAC information, no? Genuine
> question.
>
> Didn’t we go to a distinct unique identifier system for this very reason?
>
> Am I in the 1990s here or?
>
> We’re just handin
I was referring to the relative number of responses to the most recent Schoen
IPv4 maintenance draft at the link you gave (quoted by me), as compared to the
responses here on the NANOG list. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I would argue that Schoen and the co-authors of that draft have spent time
>
> I wouldn’t assume that the small number of responses indicates a lack of
> interest. It’s possible that people haven’t commented because they’ve seen
> this topic play itself out over the years, and although they have opinions,
> they don’t feel compelled to post them there. (Interestingly en
It appears that Abraham Y. Chen said:
> C. Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities.
>Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses.
>
> D. I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14
>requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support.
For
> On Mar 15, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> Firstly nobody uses mailing list digests as references. Secondly anyone can
> post to the mailing list, you just need to subscribe. If you read the thread
> you can see there is no interest in this.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org
It seems sketchy to me to even retain client MAC information, no? Genuine
question.
Didn’t we go to a distinct unique identifier system for this very reason?
Am I in the 1990s here or?
We’re just handing out addresses to UEs and things seem to work fine. For me
personally, I find the notation
John Gilmore wrote:
There were tons of things that were slapped onto IP that were basically
experimental like ARP and bootp. CIDR didn't even exist back then.
ARP was "slapped on" in 1982, long before RARP or BOOTP. The original
IP specs required that the LAN address must fit into the low or
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 07:11:47PM -0400, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> I misspoke... it's not UUID... It's DUID.
>
> This isn't a backend management issue. This is a protocol issue. The
> MAC of the interface needs to be sent with a DHCP request so that it can
> be properly authenticated to the p
Matt Hoppes wrote:
At this point I would *love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch
applied to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death.
A problem is that, a software patch is enough to upgrade an IPv4
host IPv6 capable. :-)
Anyway, with TUPLE (TCP and UDP with Port Length Extensio
I know its the same, but from UX standpoints looks different.
Anyway, that was just one example.
As for IPv6 -> IPv4 (note the arrow) its pretty much easy.
IPv6 have much bigger address space, so it can embed IPv4 addresses
in special interop subnets that are routed to special NAT GW
that handle I
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG wrote:
I really don't see why people think it's so different that v4. To
me back then it mostly seemed like v4 with bigger address.
Then I suppose, like me, you were in favor of the TUBA proposal? :)
TUBA is TCP/UDP over CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) de
As I wrote:
Nanog News wrote:
Latest from ICANN: Quantum Computers are "Interesting"…
But Don't Lose your Head
Uselessness of quantum logic gate style quantum computers
will be discussed in a separate mail.
Quantum logic gate style quantum computers use qubits,
which have two orthogonal q
14 matches
Mail list logo
