On Sep 16, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 15, 2008 11:24:50 AM PDT
To: Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Lixia Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Request For IETF 72 WG and BOF Sessions Agenda,
Minutes,
Hi Iljitsch,
There are several messages I want to respond to, and will next week,
but I wanted to first challenge something you wrote in Re: [RRG]
Renumbering...:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The users leaned on the RIRs to do PI, and any attempt to get
rid of PI would take even more ooomph than
|If this is true, and it sounds plausible, and if this $ 200 billion
|industry (2 billion x $ 100 per) needs IPv6 and
|a new routing mechanism, why isn't this list flooded by cell-phone
|engineers ?
|Do they believe in magic ?
|Do they just don't know the IETF IRTF exist ?
|Or do they have
On 17 sep 2008, at 8:40, Robin Whittle wrote:
The shim6 effort was well under way at that
point but not yet mature enough that it was possible to know
whether it would solve the problem.
The functional goals of SHIM6 are well known and have been for a
while: to provide host-based
On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:57 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Or do they have other plans ?
There's a lot of NATting going on in this space, and an active
desire on the part of management to provide the minimum of 'true' IP
connectivity which users will accept and pay for, due to fears of
On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Bruce Curtis wrote:
About 11 minutes in there is a list of mobile devices that have
support for IPv6, this of course doesn't address the issue of
whether it's allowed to be enabled by the user on a given wireless
provider's network
I can set up a mobile
On Sep 17, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Bruce Curtis wrote:
About 11 minutes in there is a list of mobile devices that have
support for IPv6, this of course doesn't address the issue of
whether it's allowed to be enabled by the user on a given
On Sep 17, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Bruce Curtis wrote:
This hotspot operator is providing IPv6 access for free until the
end of 2008.
http://hotspot.monzoon.net/downloads/Pressetext_Hotzones_IPv6_Monzoon_E.pdf
This is very cool - I hope others will follow their example.
On 17 sep 2008, at 17:49, Bruce Curtis wrote:
I think the presentation also mentioned that a lot of the
applications supported IPv6 which is also important but still not
useful if the wireless provider does not provide IPv6.
We can tunnel v6 over v4 if necessary, lack of support in ISP
If this is true, and it sounds plausible, and if this $ 200 billion
industry (2 billion x $ 100 per) needs IPv6 and
a new routing mechanism, why isn't this list flooded by cell-phone
engineers ?
Do they believe in magic ?
Do they just don't know the IETF IRTF exist ?
Or do they have other
I'd like to point out that rejecting shim6 isn't within the
ISPs' or even site operators' remit. The real issue is whether
o/s implementors care to include shim6 code in their stacks or
not. If they do, shim6 will self-deploy; if they don't, it won't.
(Pretty much the same is true of SCTP, except
11 matches
Mail list logo
