On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:56 +0900
Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Once I realised that IPv6's fixed sized node addressing model was
> > similar to Ethernet's, I then started wondering why Ethernet was like
> > it was - and then found a
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007, Mark Smith wrote:
> Once I realised that IPv6's fixed sized node addressing model was
> similar to Ethernet's, I then started wondering why Ethernet was like
> it was - and then found a paper that explains it :
>
> "48-bit Absolute Internet and Ethernet Host Numbers"
> http
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:57:45 +0900
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ever calculated how many Ethernet nodes you can attach to a single LAN
> > with 2^46 unicast addresses?
>
> you mean operationally successfully, or just for marketing glossies?
>
Theoretically. What I find a bit hard
> Ever calculated how many Ethernet nodes you can attach to a single LAN
> with 2^46 unicast addresses?
you mean operationally successfully, or just for marketing glossies?
randy
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:08:10 -0800
"Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> First, thanks everyone for the discussion. I learned more from this than a
> LOT of other discussions on IPv6. I now have a plan and I didn't before...
>
> It looks to me that one really has to know his
I have a modest proposal for providing the functionality of DHCPv4 in IPv6
autoconf:
How about using the mechanism in RFC 5075 to specify all of these variables as
RA flags?
And as long as the variables also get defined as DHCPv6 fields, perhaps we
could plan on having prefix delegation inclu
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:57:59PM +0100,
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It is wih IPv6: you just connect the ethernet cable and the RAs take
care of the rest. _You_ _really_
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 07:39 PM 12/27/2007, AD wrote:
does anyone have any experience with peering in S. America? I am
looking to move a lot of data between NewYork/LA and a few south
american countries and looking for some ISPs that have reliable
peering
Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:57:59PM +0100, Iljitsch van
> Beijnum wrote:
>> It is wih IPv6: you just connect the ethernet cable and the RAs take
>> care of the rest. _You_ _really_ _don't_ _need_ _DHCP_ _for_ _IPv6_.
>> If you n
At 07:39 PM 12/27/2007, AD wrote:
hello,
does anyone have any experience with peering in S. America? I am
looking to move a lot of data between NewYork/LA and a few south
american countries and looking for some ISPs that have reliable
peering into those countries.
Any recommendations wo
And, besides the list forwarded below,
Designated printers,
Preferred DNS Servers,
and, maybe, more.
Even in a large enterprise, the ratio of "routers" to DHCP servers
makes control of many end system parameters via DHCP a management win
compared to configuration of "routers" with this "non-
First, thanks everyone for the discussion. I learned more from this than a LOT
of other discussions on IPv6. I now have a plan and I didn't before...
It looks to me that one really has to know his customer's needs to plan out the
allocation of IPv6 space. That leads me to believe that a /
hello,
does anyone have any experience with peering in S. America? I am looking
to move a lot of data between NewYork/LA and a few south american countries
and looking for some ISPs that have reliable peering into those countries.
Any recommendations would be appreciated. The one i did find wa
In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:57:59PM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
> It is wih IPv6: you just connect the ethernet cable and the RAs take
> care of the rest. _You_ _really_ _don't_ _need_ _DHCP_ _for_ _IPv6_.
> If you need extreme control then manual configuration will
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:57:59 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27 dec 2007, at 20:26, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>
> Taken to its extreme "feature parity" means a search and replace of
> all IPv4 specs to make every instance of "32 bits" "128 bits" but not
>
On 27 dec 2007, at 20:26, Christopher Morrow wrote:
With IPv4, a lot of these features are developed by vendors and
(sometimes) later standardized in the IETF or elsewhere. With IPv6,
the vendors haven't quite caught up with the IETF standardization
efforts yet, so the situation is samewhat dif
On 27 dec 2007, at 12:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that DHCPv6 prefix delegation (for instance a /56) to a CPE
which provides configuration to hosts on its LAN side sounds like a
reasonable model. It requires the customer to have a CPE with actual
*router* functionality, as opposed to j
On Dec 27, 2007 5:27 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With IPv4, a lot of these features are developed by vendors and
> (sometimes) later standardized in the IETF or elsewhere. With IPv6,
> the vendors haven't quite caught up with the IETF standardization
> efforts yet, so
In a message written on Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 11:27:13AM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
> 100% of the DHCP functionality). But apart from that, some of the
> choices made along the way make DHCPv6 a lot harder to use than DHCP
> for IPv4. Not only do you lack a default gateway (which is act
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:11:54 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27 dec 2007, at 11:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "Configure this stuff manually" may work for a small number of
> > customers. It is highly undesirable (and probably won't be considered
> > at all) in
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:27:13 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26 dec 2007, at 22:40, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
> > It would be very interesting to me if the answer was "it's moot
> > because we're going to move to CGA's as a step forward"; it would
> > be equally i
> > "Configure this stuff manually" may work for a small number of
> > customers. It is highly undesirable (and probably won't be considered
> > at all) in an environment with, say, 1 million customers.
>
> Of course not. But RAs on a subnet with a million customers doesn't
> work either, nor d
On 27 dec 2007, at 11:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Configure this stuff manually" may work for a small number of
customers. It is highly undesirable (and probably won't be considered
at all) in an environment with, say, 1 million customers.
Of course not. But RAs on a subnet with a million c
> Personally, I'm not a big fan of DHCPv6. First of all, from a
> philosophical standpoint: I believe that stateless autoconfiguration
> is a better model in most cases (although it obviously doesn't support
> 100% of the DHCP functionality). But apart from that, some of the
> choices made
On 26 dec 2007, at 22:40, Leo Bicknell wrote:
If you're a shop that uses such features today (MAC/Port tracking,
DHCP snooping, etc) to "secure" your IPv4 infrastructure does IPv6
RA's represent a step backwards from a security perspective? Would
IPv6 deployment be hindered until there is DHCP
25 matches
Mail list logo
