On Mar 10, 2013 2:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org
wrote:
On 3/10/2013 2:50 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/10/13 15:43, John Levine allegedly wrote:
- Each of the confirming bodies (the ISOC Board for the IAB, the
IAB for the IESG, and the IESG for the IAOC) could
On Mar 6, 2013 1:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/03/2013 08:36, t.p. wrote:
...
Interesting, there is more life in Congestion Control than I might have
thought. But it begs the question, is this something that the IETF
should be involved with or is it
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
chris.dearl...@baesystems.com wrote:
I've no idea about the example quoted, but I can see some of their motivation.
TCP's assumptions (really simplified) that loss of packet = congestion =
backoff
aren't necessarily so in a wireless
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
It's Friday. Time to plug IPv6 some more. :-)
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 17, 2012 9:12 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com
If LISP succeeds, this results in significant reduction in core
table
sizes for everyone.
Not everyone. Only people who carry core
On Nov 16, 2012 9:27 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Why does any operator have a reason to carr any routes other than their
paying customers? Because it provides connectivity for their customers.
If we get this block allocaed, then it results in 1 extra routing entry
in the
On May 1, 2012 4:08 PM, Janet P Gunn jgu...@csc.com wrote:
But that leaves out all of us that started off in a different (technical)
field (Math and OR in my case) and ended up here..
Furthermore, is rigorous academic STEM education highly correlated with
whatever it is you are trying to
On Feb 14, 2012 7:40 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Why? They would have needed updated stacks. The routers would
have need updated stacks. The servers would have needed updated
stacks. The firewalls would have needed updated stacks. The load
balancers would have needed updated
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 201202132046.q1dkk1hn020...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp, Martin Rex
writes
:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-02-14 05:51, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Are you
On Feb 10, 2012 4:25 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 15:13, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:22, Chris Grundemann wrote:
This is not about IPv4 life-support.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frank Ellermann
hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkzt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 December 2011 04:27, Cameron Byrne wrote:
[they = the IETF]
they underscored that point by not rejecting various past attempts at
expanding private ipv4 space like 240/4.
Sorry. S
On Dec 4, 2011 10:40 AM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 12/4/11 08:48 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Hi Victor, Yes that helps, thanks - it confirms what I had always
assumed was the case but could not grok from the discussions on this
list nor the draft.
Because the new address
On Dec 4, 2011 11:06 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
Yes, I know that mobile networks have started going that way - which is
why I asked the question. The reason we (the IETF) cannot possibly pick
the same RFC1918 address space is because those mobile networks now have
the
On Dec 4, 2011 7:10 PM, Chris Donley c.don...@cablelabs.com wrote:
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
the 10 part involves customer service work that those interested in
deploying CGN
On Dec 4, 2011 7:24 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 4, 2011 7:10 PM, Chris Donley c.don...@cablelabs.com wrote:
More seriously, the impression I've gathered from various discussions is
that the 90/10 model is viable, but it's not the first choice because
the 10 part
I will add one more concern with this allocation.
IPv4 address allocation is a market (supply exceeds demand in this
case), and thus a strategic game (like chess) to gather limited
resources .
We have known for a long time how IPv4 was not an acceptable long term solution.
We have known for a
the awareness of the challenges of this space, but
points to this option as the most manageable and workable solution
for IPv6 transition space.
Chris
On 12/1/11 2:05 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I will add one more concern with this allocation.
IPv4 address
Would you take a check for $50 million USD instead of the /10? Sounds like
they are equivalent value.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20111201/BIZ/112010483/1361/Borders-selling-Internet-addresses-for-$786-000
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:41 PM 11/30/11, Victor Kuarsingh wrote:
Ralph,
Please note the following report:
WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf)
Thanks for the reference. Do you have an easy
On Nov 29, 2011 9:46 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message m2r50q42nn.wl%ra...@psg.com, Randy Bush writes:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more controlled. What's the bet Skype has a patched released
within a week of this being made
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
In my opinion, having a designated space is better than squat space, given
that we we already know that squat space is being used. The argument that it
extends the life of IPv4 is, IMHO, of limited value; yes, it allows
On Oct 21, 2011 6:07 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: Andrew Allen [mailto:aal...@rim.com]
We can put all kinds of wonderful constraints on hotels if we want to -
[snip] - then we will likely never be able to meet anywhere.
[WEG] I am not suggesting that this be a
native networks, everything
else is a hack and time to market is important ipv4 exhausted.
Cameron
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
Cc: Mark Townsley; Hui Deng; Softwires-wg list
On Sep 28, 2011 2:51 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Inline please,
2011/9/27 Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com
-Original Message-
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com;
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
+1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 sockets and
pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks.
Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and
network benefit
Frankly,
Cameron
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: behave-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:behave-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
Cameron Byrne
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:12 PM
To: Mark Townsley
Cc: Hui Deng; Softwires-wg list; Behave WG; IETF Discussion; Dan Wing
(dwing)
Subject
On Sep 26, 2011 6:58 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call:
draft-weil-shared-transition
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:07 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF
On Sep 24, 2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser (bschlies) bschl...@cisco.com
wrote:
On Sep 23, 2011, at 20:54, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
So if there is going to be breakage, and folks are willing to fix it over
time because the good outweighs the bad (I personally do not believe
On Sep 23, 2011 1:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2011-09-23 17:21, Benson Schliesser wrote:
However, I would like to make sure we don't lose sight of the need
for some urgency with draft-weil.
I'm a little puzzled by the claim of urgency; I remember hearing
On Sep 23, 2011 6:20 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
I already made one Last Call comment, but I neglected to state
unambiguously whether I supported the proposal.
I do support this proposal.
I think that this question needs to be viewed as a choice between two
risks:
1)
On Sep 12, 2011 8:51 PM, Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush...@gmail.com
wrote:
The introduction in the draft says:
IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for
IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments
utilizing double protocol
On Jul 28, 2011 1:08 AM, Philip Homburg pch-v6...@u-1.phicoh.com wrote:
In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:56:51 -0400 you wrote:
In the absence of a coherent instruction from IETF for a phase-out
plan, declaring this protocol historic under the current proposed
language, will do
On Jul 28, 2011 5:28 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Masataka Ohta wrote:
It would be nice if 5 or 10 years ago there would have been a good
standard to do address selection.
11 years ago in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00.txt, I wrote:
End systems (hosts) are end systems. To
On Jul 27, 2011 4:32 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
On Jul 27, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long term future *by
definition*. Even if someone chooses to design a v2,
On Jul 27, 2011 7:20 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
This seems like an easy question to answer. You'd implement and use
6to4v2 because it works
On Jul 27, 2011 8:16 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 968f0b1c-d082-4a59-8213-fd58c74af...@nominum.com, Ted Lemon
writes
:
If you have a reason to install and enable 6to4, why would the nominal
status of a couple of RFCs make you do anything different?
Because it will
On Jul 27, 2011 8:30 AM, Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Since 6to4 is a transition mechanism it has no long
term future *by definition*. Even if someone chooses
to design a v2, who is going to implement it?
free.fr, which is a third of the
I approve of this approach.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I, for one, am not interested talking about 6to4 anymore.
On Jul 8, 2011 4:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2011-07-08 19:16, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
Guess I should clearify something, the thing I am considering are to
drop all 2002::/16 addresses hard, of course
On Jul 3, 2011 12:29 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 3:15 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
IMHO Right now, we need services with native IPv6 based interfaces,
with equivalent performance and
On Jul 3, 2011 7:14 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Sun, 3 Jul 2011 07:53:46 +0200 you wrote:
Unfortunately, in the 20% of the time that it's not working, Google has
no
idea that the user has a
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS
WG and IETF consensus
If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes barriers
to REAL ipv6 deployment gets shouted down by a few people not involved in
REAL ipv6
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 14:34, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
james woodyatt wrote:
On Jun 29, 2011 7:19 PM, Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
Hi, Jari,
My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to stress
that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort... however, I
think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear to me why/how
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
list (ietf@ietf.org) because it is very noisy and operators have
other
On Jun 12, 2011 11:26 PM, Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
wrote:
Cameron Byrne wrote:
The faint promise of yet another transition mechanism is hardly
a motivation to keep 6to4 around. The data (ripe ...)
overwhelming proves default-on 6to4 clients + thinly deployed
relays
On Jun 12, 2011 6:18 PM, Michel Py mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
If you were to remove 6to4 and 6RD from the
picture, that would set us back 10 years
ago in terms of IPv6 adoption.
Doug Barton wrote:
Can you explain the exact mechanism by which what
On Jun 7, 2011 12:16 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 7 Jun 2011, at 07:33, Gert Doering wrote:
Do we really need to go through all this again?
As long as there is no Internet Overlord that can command people to
a) put up relays everywhere and b) ensure that these relays
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
How much longer does this list need to be to justify choosing better
labels for this v6 dual-stack transition hack?
returning different sets of resource records on the basis of the orgin
of a query ala split horizon is not exactly new
51 matches
Mail list logo
