Hi,
I noticed that http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/74/ has links for audio
streams (good!). However, I haven't seen an announcement. Did I miss it?
Best regards, Julian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Brian E Carpenter - le (m/j/a) 3/20/09 2:40 PM:
NAT does not offer ANY multihoming benefits whatsoever, in fact, NAT
breaks multihoming because after a rehoming event, the addresses are
translated differently.
It's correct that NAT changeovers break existing sessions. But
No business case for IPv6, survey finds But Internet Society members report
rising customer demand, deployment plans
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/032009-ipv6-business-case.html?nladnam
e=032009dailynewspmalcode=nldailynewspm187866
Business incentives are completely lacking today for
There will be MP3 audio streams of the meetings happening in the
breakout rooms. Specifically these are
Continental 12
Continental 3
Continental 4
Continental 5
Continental 6
Imperial A
Imperial B
Franciscan A
Please refer to the online agenda at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/74/
to find a
On 2009-03-22 06:11, Rémi Després wrote:
Brian E Carpenter - le (m/j/a) 3/20/09 2:40 PM:
...
Also, NAT-based multihoming has value for large international corporate
networks with dozens or hundreds of interconnection points to
the public network. It basically solves their address management
Thanks, Brian, for the detailed explanation.
IMHO, this case is _very_ interesting.
It identifies one more NAT44 service that must be available in IPv6
with a defined solution for it.
AFAIK, it was not identified in RFC4864, and I didn't have it either in
draft-despres-sam-02.
Regards,
RD
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Suppose you're operating a large international network with (to take
a random example) IPv4 1/8 as its PI prefix.
Are you assuming that an organization operating such a large network
does not operate any externally accesible servers?
I would rather assume that there
On Sat, 7-Mar-09, at 20:58 , Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
PS - Thank you for your TURN implementations - as you know, they have
helped find many problems with that spec. I'm off to read the TURN
Acknowledgements :-)
My contributions were acknowledged, it's not the
Dear experts,
The most important essence of network security is fundamental understanding
of randomness. For example, the intensity of cipher system depends upon the
artificial generator of randomness .
There might be no need to say, the strict definition of randomness for human
being
On 21/03/2009, at 3:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 mrt 2009, at 7:43, Lixia Zhan
Are we ready to adopt the policy that forbids IPv6 NAT traversal
mechanisms?
no.
This industry needs standards, and relies on standards.
For many years the Internet Engineering Task Force has
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Special Use IPv4 Addresses'
draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please
11 matches
Mail list logo
