On 19 feb 2008, at 10:02, Dan Wing wrote:
It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what
would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh
v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would
break, which would be great.
You really don't want to do that for stuff like
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote :
It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what
would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh
v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would
break, which would be great.
You really don't want to do that for stuff
Le Tuesday 19 February 2008 11:02:49 ext Dan Wing, vous avez écrit :
Is this functionality already available in Vista and Leopard?
I ignore whether the privacy extension of stateless
autoconfiguration of RFC 4941 is supported.
It is supported in XP/Vista, and used by default for outgoing
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:53 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?
Dan Wing wrote :
It would not be an application concern.
If users want this kind of strong privacy,
Folks,
The nomcom has finished the IESG member selection process and the IAB
has confirmed the following individuals for a two-year term as IESG
members.
Lisa Dusseault, Applications Area
Jari Arkko, Internet Area
Dan Romascanu, Operations and Management Area
Cullen Jennings, Real-time
* Iljitsch van Beijnum:
On 14 feb 2008, at 21:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
The prevailing assumption is that IPv6 end nodes will be globally
addressable for practical purporses. I think this is a very unlikely
outcome.
Are you saying that there will be IPv6 NAT?
Is a node globally
2. that all end nodes will 'automagically' be able to be reached through
the IPv6 routing and routed protocols.
Obviously #2 is sound
But it's not what will happen on the Internet. Protocol development
needs to take that into account.
___
Ietf
I have just scanned through version -10 of this draft, posted
couple of hours ago.
This version addresses my comments 5 and 6; and comments 4 and 10
are obsolete since the text I commented has been removed. The
remaining comments are still valid.
One additional comment for version -10:
16)
Ted,
Thanks for your kind words and sorry for taking my time to answer. Please,
find below some thoughts, comments, and questions to your mail.
On 2/15/08 3:55 AM, ext Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jonne,
Thanks for your reply; some comments inline.
At 1:17 PM -0800 2/14/08,
--On Monday, 18 February, 2008 16:33 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it is surely a factor, I believe the dominant driver
for NAT is addressing autonomy.
For enterprise networks, certainly, coupled with multihoming.
But absolutely not for SOHO networks, where the
I think that many people in the security world and rather more outside
it are repeating a big mistake we made during the cryptowars of the
1990s here.
During the cryptowars, designing protocols to make them 'Freeh-proof'
became a priority. It was certainly a bigger priority than making them
On 19 feb 2008, at 14:20, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) With NATs, every SOHO network (or at least every SOHO
network an ISP can claim with a straight face to support) has
exactly the same topology and addressing architecture.
Is this important? The external address(es) are still different.
(2)
On Feb 19, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 feb 2008, at 14:20, John C Klensin wrote:
(1) With NATs, every SOHO network (or at least every SOHO
network an ISP can claim with a straight face to support) has
exactly the same topology and addressing architecture.
Is this
On 19 feb 2008, at 15:40, Dan York wrote:
Is this important? The external address(es) are still different.
Sure, but the home internal networks are identical. So Homeowner A
calls up the ISP support and is having a problem getting a machine
to work with the wireless router provided by
I'm not buying that this is so important that it's worth
having a box rewrite EVERY address in EVERY packet for.
If you really want this, you can simply create a loopback
interface with address fc00::1 on it and users can type
http://[fc00::1]/; (ok, so the brackets are annoying, but no
Hi, Iljitsch,
I'm confused...
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 feb 2008, at 15:40, Dan York wrote:
Is this important? The external address(es) are still different.
Sure, but the home internal networks are identical. So Homeowner A
calls up the ISP support and is having
On 2/19/2008 4:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just scanned through version -10 of this draft, posted
couple of hours ago.
This version addresses my comments 5 and 6; and comments 4 and 10
are obsolete since the text I commented has been removed. The
remaining comments are still
--On Tuesday, 19 February, 2008 16:05 +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 feb 2008, at 15:40, Dan York wrote:
Is this important? The external address(es) are still
different.
Sure, but the home internal networks are identical. So
Homeowner A calls up the ISP
According to the trust administrative procedures:
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Trust_Procedures_12-15-2005.pdf
the trustees should hold at least three meetings per year, and shall
appoint a secretary who should record and publish minutes of the
meetings.
Following the link 'Minutes' from
On 19 feb 2008, at 16:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nobody writes all of this up into a set of guidelines
for implementors of SOHO IPv6 gateways, including some more
details on a proper service discovery mechanism, then it isn't
going to happen.
Well, I was working in
Apologies that this ia a bit old, but it repeats a - sadly - very common
misperception that is worth correcting yet again.
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a protocol doesn't need port numbers or a UDP-like checksum (i.e.,
either no checksum or a better one)
UDP
On Feb 19, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, in much of the world, profit margins for ISPs in the
residential and SOHO business are sufficiently thin that a
single support call can wipe out a few month's of profits from
that account and one that actually requires getting
On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
According to the trust administrative procedures:
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Trust_Procedures_12-15-2005.pdf
the trustees should hold at least three meetings per year, and shall
appoint a secretary who should record and publish minutes
On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Apologies that this ia a bit old, but it repeats a - sadly - very
common
misperception that is worth correcting yet again.
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a protocol doesn't need port numbers or a UDP-like checksum (i.e.,
On 2008-02-20 08:34, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
Not AFAICT in IPv6 :
rfc2460 :
o Unlike IPv4, when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6 node,
the UDP checksum is not optional. That is, whenever
originating a UDP packet, an IPv6 node must compute a UDP
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
Dan Wing wrote :
It would not be an application concern.
If users want this kind of strong privacy,
Typically, users don't know or care; more often it is the network
administrator that cares.
Agreed.
Users, or network administrators as the case may be, would be better.
they activate this
Thanks Elwyn for the review. We will address each of these comments
and will propose the text, some time this week.
Regards
Sri
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
NATs will be needed during the (long) transition period, including
some NATs dealing with both IPv6 and IPv4.
I don't see how the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 requires NAT in IPv6.
I am not advocating "v6 to v6 NATs", as confirmed by some of
Dan Wing wrote :
Such 1-for-1 address rewriting does not provide the topology
hiding that many people seem to like of their existing NAPT
devices, nor does such 1-for-1 address rewriting obscure the
number of hosts behind the NAT. Such obscuring can be useful
for certain businesses (there
On Feb 19, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-02-20 08:34, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
Not AFAICT in IPv6 :
rfc2460 :
o Unlike IPv4, when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6
node,
the UDP checksum is not optional. That is, whenever
Keith,
On 2008-02-19 20:02, Keith Moore wrote:
I hate to rain on the parade, but...
1. ULAs will give enterprises the addressing autonomy that they
seek (as RFC 1918 addresses do with IPv4)
Correct. That's available today.
; but that 2. Enterprises will NOT need to use NAT to make those
My point is that this is a solved problem in practice. Probably not
solved in the way you or I would like, but solved nevertheless.
Perhaps the meaning of solved has changed over the years :)
Several years ago I saw a sign that read:
Mediocrity is excellence at pursuing the mean.
On 2008-02-20 04:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 feb 2008, at 15:40, Dan York wrote:
Is this important? The external address(es) are still different.
Sure, but the home internal networks are identical. So Homeowner A
calls up the ISP support and is having a problem getting a
On 19 feb 2008, at 10:02, Dan Wing wrote:
It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what
would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh
v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would
break, which would be great.
You really don't want to do that for
Hi, Iljitsch,
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 feb 2008, at 16:30, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
If you really want this, you can simply create a loopback interface
with address fc00::1 on it and users can type http:// [fc00::1]/ (ok,
so the brackets are annoying, but no NAT
On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-02-20 08:34, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
Not AFAICT in IPv6 :
rfc2460 :
o Unlike IPv4, when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6
node,
the UDP
The IESG has received a request from the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol WG (dccp) to consider the following document:
- 'Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over the Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) '
draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-05.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans
The IESG is considering the following document again now that
important dependencies are ready:
- 'INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSIONS'
draft-ietf-imapext-sort-19.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
71st IETF Meeting
Philadelphia, PA, USA
March 9-14,2008
Host:
Comcast
The Marriott still has a limited number of rooms available at the group
rate but the Doubletree Hotel is currently sold out. We have secured an
additional block of rooms at the Hilton Garden Inn, which is approximately
40 matches
Mail list logo
