On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article you write:
> >> But that does not remove those devices from the network.
> >
> >That ship has sailed.
>
> This is where device profiles could help. If enough devices register
> profiles with the local router, at some point the rout
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> +1
>
> One IP per device will almost most likely be the preference and
> implementation in corporate/enterprise deployments. Too much procedure,
> regulation and other roadblocks prevent any other solution.
>
> Authentication, Authorization,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 6/10/15 2:00 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo has detailed why N=1 doesn't work for devices that need to use
>> xlat
>>
>
> ... and it's been well demonstrated that this is a red herring argume
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> The other option would, of course, be "bridging" plus IPv6 "NAT", and I
>> assume you see the issues there.
>>
>
> No, actually I don't. I realize that you and Lorenzo are part of the rabid
> NAT-hating crowd, but I'm not. I don't
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:56 PM, George, Wes
wrote:
>
> On 6/10/15, 5:27 PM, "Ted Hardie" wrote:
>
> >>... and this argument has been refuted by the word "bridging."
> >>
> >>
> >To repeat Valdis' question:
> >
&
In-line.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 6/10/15 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> But understanding whether what we're actually
>> looking for is "static" or "single" is a pretty key piece of the
>> requirements sco
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:45 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:42:46 +0530
> Glen Kent wrote:
>
>
> > Is there a reason why this is often done so? Is this because UDP
> > is stateless and any script kiddie could launch a DOS attack with a
> > UDP stream?
>
> State, some form of s
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:45 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:42:46 +0530
>> > Glen Kent wrote:
>> >
>>
ith strong support from a vendor with a
tied house
model (e.g. RIM or Apple), it might even get to be popular. But as a general
purpose approach, it has not hit that sweet spot.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>R's,
>John
Silly question: how well would using 1.0.0.257.in-addr.arpa match the
need identified in draft-jabley-sink-arpa ?
It seems like it would be equally well guaranteed to be non-existant
(short of change in the def of IPv4 and in-addr.arpa). Like
sink.arpa, it would get you a valid SOA and nothing el
r.
If I put in an MX record pointing to a guaranteed non-present
FQDN, someone complying with that text will throw an error rather than
keep seeking for an A/. Is *that* useful? If so, then
sink.arpa/1.0.0.257.in-addr.arpa as an MX record entry may be.
regards,
Ted Hardie
11 matches
Mail list logo
