On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:27 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
Yes, that's right.
If you can't get native IPv6, 6to4 is better than tunnels.
Don't forget that 6to4 is also a tunnel ;)
Actually the most significant difference is that 6to4 makes an automatic
tunnel to the remote 6to4 site, one
Hi debian-ipv6,My name is Daniel. I found you on
http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:www. I am sorry
if I intrude but I just have a quick question for you.
Since you seem to be more acquainted with the Internet than I
am,
maybe you can share your thoughts. A year ago I had started posting
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:05:58PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:27 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
Yes, that's right.
If you can't get native IPv6, 6to4 is better than tunnels.
Don't forget that 6to4 is also a tunnel ;)
Actually the most significant
I've read many threads on the DNS including an extended one from 1999.
As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been a consensus
about how to handle dynamic updates to DNS from autoconfigured hosts.
It isn't important to me that I have reverse lookups, nor do I even
care if I have to use
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:15:09PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
If my friend Joe, down the street on the Cable Network and I are both
doing IPv6, and we both have tunnels, then our traffic, which should
travel literally 10s of meters, will travel 100s of km instead.
If we were both
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
I've read many threads on the DNS including an extended one from 1999.
As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been a consensus
about how to handle dynamic updates to DNS from autoconfigured hosts.
It isn't important to me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jeroen == Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeroen Don't forget that 6to4 is also a tunnel ;) Actually the most
Jeroen significant difference is that 6to4 makes an automatic
Jeroen tunnel to the remote 6to4 site, one huge problem though, you
Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
I've read many threads on the DNS including an extended one from 1999.
As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been a consensus
about how to handle dynamic updates to DNS from autoconfigured hosts.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:29:52PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:06:31AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
I've read many threads on the DNS including an extended one from 1999.
As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have been a consensus
about how to handle dynamic
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:15:09PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
The reason to still have the tunnel, is just what you said: so that we
can talk to 2001::/16 space.
While I found that the ::192.88.99.1 routers weren't working for me,
it is still my
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:24:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:15:09PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
If my friend Joe, down the street on the Cable Network and I are both
doing IPv6, and we both have tunnels, then our traffic, which should
travel literally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Marc == Marc Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc I've read many threads on the DNS including an extended one
Marc from 1999. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have
Marc been a consensus about how to handle dynamic updates to DNS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Wouter == Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouter Of course, by properly setting up mobile IPv6 extensions,
Wouter you could sidestep this issue and get the best of both
Wouter worlds; but since mobile IPv6 requires a kernel patch and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Wouter == Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouter Not that I know of. However, seen the fact that MAC
Wouter addresses don't usually change, I'd say it's fair to assume
Wouter your autoconfigured hosts won't, either -- unless you use
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:12:49PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Marc == Marc Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc I've read many threads on the DNS including an extended one
Marc from 1999. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jeroen == Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeroen What is the exact problem, as I am missing a large detail of
Jeroen it :) The above skips the DHCP server.
Random clients do not have a trust relationship with the owner of the
reverse zone.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:21:19PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
Wouter == Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouter Not that I know of. However, seen the fact that MAC
Wouter addresses don't usually change, I'd say it's fair to assume
Wouter your autoconfigured hosts
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 11:50:10AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:24:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Indeed. The only downside of 6to4 is that your subnet prefix changes
with your public v4 address. If you don't have a static v4 address, then
it'll be a bit less
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 09:45:55PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 15:12 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
They exist, but I haven't seen them. I'd run them. I see no way to do
DDNS without state. I also see lots of reasons why I want state in my
address configuration,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:53:21PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jeroen == Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeroen What is the exact problem, as I am missing a large detail of
Jeroen it :) The above skips the DHCP server.
Random
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:41:09PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:21:19PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
Wouter == Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouter Not that I know of. However, seen the fact that MAC
Wouter addresses don't usually change,
Paul == Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:38:06AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:05:58PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: On
Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:27 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
I thought that is what the endpoint was for,
22 matches
Mail list logo
