Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Having said that, I ask you: What do you foresee as a realistic IPv6
> >>transition plan? Dual stacks? I don't see it happening, to tell you
> >>the truth. (Maybe this 6-in-4 stuff will actually help here.)
>
> well, how about we just start to tur
> Bill Fink wrote:
>
> > Now if we could only have an alternate stateful address
> > configuration method than the backwards one of DHCPv6, one that
> > generated an IPv6 address directly from the host's domain name
> > rather than from a layer 2 MAC address, we'd really be in business.
>
Daniel,
Surely you cannot conceive a time when the IP
address' are the domain of everyone. The growth
of the Internet / Networking within the last 5
years shows you that our current addressing schema
is inadequate for the future demand, if you
extrapolate the current growth in line the growth
in
Daniel Senie wrote:
> Some folks are doing this for dialups too. It's the model for
> "home networking" today. Will ISPs be willing to assign a block of
> addresses in the future to home networks?
Today, they are not, because they want to make that a premium service.
However, one day, they may
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> If you mean RSIP, RSIP is even further from deployment than
> v6. Indeed, I'd say that RSIP is a clever but utterly dead end idea.
I too would rather see effort put into IPv6... if it's going to happen,
let's get going, though... it's been in the oven too long.
There
John Stracke wrote:
>
> "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> > BTW, I fully agree with those who contend that v6 does not solve the
> > route agregation problems we have in v4.
>
> In itself, no; but getting people who have old non-aggregatable addresses to
> transition to v6 will give them the chance
"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I'm not saying that NAT's are a Great Thing, I do wonder if people are
> experiencing a bit of "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome here.
> NAT's are in wide-spread use, and lots of people (e.g. you :-) are being
> forced to struggle
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> BTW, I fully agree with those who contend that v6 does not solve the
> route agregation problems we have in v4.
In itself, no; but getting people who have old non-aggregatable addresses to
transition to v6 will give them the chance to get aggregatable addresses, won't
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The situation right now is really horrible. People are pretending it
> isn't, but the pretense really has to end. The End to End model isn't
> just a "nice idea" -- its actually needed for people to manage and
> maintain network
"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perry, I'm curious about the technical aspects of the problems you're seeing,
> in particular:
>
> Are the problems you are seeing due to i) the need for NAT boxes to grope
> around in packets, ii) the fact that hosts don't have permanent, glob
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When you've been awakened in the middle of the night every night for a
> week, because the NAT rules to deal with the fact that you have several
> intercommunicating networks all of which think they're 10.0.0.0/8
> ... Anyone ou
auth 7236ffa2 subscribe ietf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 4:53 PM -0800 12/2/99, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>Consider an alternative where the client decides to use IPv6. Granted,
>the client could get enough IPv6 addresses for all purposes, regardless of
>whether these purposes essential or not. But then in order for that
>client to communicate with the
Bill Fink wrote:
> Now if we could only have an alternate stateful address
> configuration method than the backwards one of DHCPv6, one that
> generated an IPv6 address directly from the host's domain name
> rather than from a layer 2 MAC address, we'd really be in business.
> Maybe that
Ian King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But then again, I would expect that a large corporation would see the need
> to own a large address space, rather than attempting to "pseudo-expand" its
> address space through the use of NAT.
You are assuming they could get such a space. They can't. No one
At 11:39 AM 12/3/99 +0100, Simon Reynolds wrote:
...
>Later I found out that LDAP is based on DAP (directory access protocol)
>but I didn't find any real specification what is really send via
>that protocol either. Did I miss some RFC or Draft who says what
>is really send via the protocol?
DAP i
Hi,
I am looking for traces or models of the rate of link failures in
WANs. When I say "link failure" this includes a slow link that would
be detected as faulty by a time-out based failure detector (e.g.,
TCP). I am particularly interested in the probability that such link
failures will cause th
At 09:27 AM 12/3/99 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 11:43 01.12.99 -0500, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>At 10:49 PM 11/30/99 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>>
>> >note also that DNS is often slow, and seems less reliable than IP.
>> >by increasing the reliance on DNS you increase the probability
> btw, i think the address space stuff for subscribers using NATs is often
> (not always) hokum - its
> mostly that they can't be bothered to design a decent addressing
> architecture for their intranets.
>
> cheers
>jon
Oh, I think that there are lots of good engineers out there who do a g
Hi,
I try to implement LDAP support in a little program I made.
However, I don't like to waste the program with all the LDAP
library stuff from the University of Michigan or OpenLDAP.
So I checkout out the LDAP RFC (1777) to make my own little
server implementation (it only should support search
unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
begin:vcard
n:Jalan;Kamal
tel;work:+91 80 553 8086
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Oracle Soulution Services (India);EMEA Apps Consulting
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Consultant
note:Time Diff: GMT + 0530 Hours
adr;quoted-printable:;;Maruthi Towers,=
At 18:01 02.12.99 -0500, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>Actually, it's still a relatively simple lookup mechanism (boolean
>domain names, anyone? :-)
RFC 2673.
Sorry, just couldn't resist :-)
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 17:30 01.12.99 -0800, Dan Kohn wrote:
>Specific processes can be and almost always are identified by a port number.
>Just as TCP connections are identified as a 4-tuple of sender and receiver
>IP address and port number, an application layer session would be identified
>by a 4-tuple of sender
At 20:05 02.12.99 -0500, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>My question is still there - is the current mission critical nature of
>the simple DNS name->IP address lookup service having a chilling effect
>on innovation in DNS technology?
Definitely. And that's a sign of sanity.
> The fact that people have
At 11:43 01.12.99 -0500, Christian Huitema wrote:
>At 10:49 PM 11/30/99 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >note also that DNS is often slow, and seems less reliable than IP.
> >by increasing the reliance on DNS you increase the probability of failure.
>
>Data point: out of 40,000 random DNS requests l
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Peter Deutsch wrote:
> Actually, it's still a relatively simple lookup mechanism (boolean
> domain names, anyone? :-) The interesting thing is how many different
> applications for this technology there are, with more coming along. Some
> of these new applications would benef
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yakov Rekhter typed:
>>Consider an alternative where the client decides to use IPv6. Granted,
>>the client could get enough IPv6 addresses for all purposes, regardless of
>>whether these purposes essential or not. But then in order for that
>>client to commun
27 matches
Mail list logo
