On 9/14/2014 11:20 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>> Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
>> can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
>> then propagate the binding to othe
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
> can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
> then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
> Further discove
Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
Further discovery requests (e.g. ARP, ND) from other attached hosts could
then a
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> Reading the article what occurs to me is:
>
> IPv4 requires a certain amount of administrative personnel overhead.
>
> It's relatively low which is certainly one reason for the success of
> IPv4. People are expensive so any new, pervasive tech
Reading the article what occurs to me is:
IPv4 requires a certain amount of administrative personnel overhead.
It's relatively low which is certainly one reason for the success of
IPv4. People are expensive so any new, pervasive technology will be
judged at least in part on its personnel require
Thus spake Scott Weeks (sur...@mauigateway.com) on Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at
12:17:18PM -0700:
> --- fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
> From: Paul Ferguson
>
> There's been a lot of on-and-off discussion about v6,
> especially about security and operational concerns
> about some aspects of IPv6 depl
--- fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
From: Paul Ferguson
There's been a lot of on-and-off discussion about v6,
especially about security and operational concerns
about some aspects of IPv6 deployment, specifically
regarding neighbor discovery (although there are other
operational security co
On Sep 7, 2014 8:35 AM, "Paul Ferguson" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> There's been a lot of on-and-off discussion about v6, especially about
> security and operational concerns about some aspects of IPv6
> deployment, specifically regarding neighbor discovery (al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
There's been a lot of on-and-off discussion about v6, especially about
security and operational concerns about some aspects of IPv6
deployment, specifically regarding neighbor discovery (although there
are other operational security concerns, as well
9 matches
Mail list logo
