In your letter dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:31:13 -0700 you wrote:
- If one is in the business of writing an draft about what is native
IPv6, and if one of the draft's goals is to reach -cough- consensus
-cough-, one may consider forgetting the 6PE classification
altogether. The one part that is not
In your letter dated Sat, 30 Jul 2011 11:39:53 -0700 you wrote:
6RD is not a last mile solution. With the existing levels of IPv6 traffic, an
ISP would deploy a couple of 6RD relays at their main IX. In a country such as
France, it means that a 6RD customer in Nice would see their IPv6 traffic
In your letter dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:38:12 +0200 (MEST) you wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Martin Rex writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
More correctly it is try the first address and if that doesn't
connect in a short period (150...250ms) start a second connection
to the next address
In your letter dated Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:55:04 -0700 you wrote:
On Jul 28, 2011 5:28 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
It would be so much easier if hosts on the public internet could
use one single IPv6 address that contains both, the IPv6 network prefix
and the IPv4 host address, and then
In your letter dated Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:38:16 -0700 you wrote:
R?mi Despr?s wrote:
6rd is designed to offer native IPv6 prefixes
across IPv4-only routing domains.
There is a word for that: oxymoron. In French: oxymore.
If it stops working when IPv4 is broken, it is not native.
Could you
In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:41:38 -0400 you wrote:
PS - And in those cases, proper address selection is a much better solution
(IMHO) than hitting this screw with a hammer.
I think the problem is that we don't know how to do 'proper' address
selection. It would be nice if 5 or 10
In your letter dated Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:50:38 -0400 you wrote:
In general, all of a host's addresses (at least, those in the same
preference class in the address selection algorithm) need to work
equally well from everywhere.
But even that might not be sufficient. Fred Baker has recently
In your letter dated Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:08:01 +0900 you wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
I think the problem is that we don't know how to do 'proper' address
selection.
I know and it's trivially easy.
11 years ago in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00.txt, I wrote:
End systems (hosts) are end
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 precisely that. Please please please, if IETF
wants 6to4 to die, then publish
In your letter dated Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:33 +1000 you wrote:
In message 4e2f4491.30...@gmail.com, Brian E Carpenter writes:
Of course, if implementors choose to drop the code you might not be
able to upgrade software versions - but hopefully by that time you
will have native IPv6 service
In your letter dated Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:25:53 -0700 you wrote:
Maybe I'm reading the list wrong,
but I think the sticky point here is the historic thing, and nothing
short of removing that part will significantly change the mindset of
people who oppose it.
Have you considered a newer revision of
In your letter dated Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:26:26 +0900 you wrote:
Given that each of us reads something different into the definition of HISTO
RIC, is there any hope that this thread will ever converge?
I don't see any progress.
We may just have to blacklist any resolvers that have 6to4 clients
In your letter dated Sat, 2 Jul 2011 16:02:47 -0400 you wrote:
Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the
threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was a
small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus.
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 2002::/16 address. Google only knows, after the
fact, that the user suffered a 20 or 75-second timeout and was not happy. So
it would
In your letter dated Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:37:56 -0400 you wrote:
I have also seen those claims in v6ops email (haven't caught up with all of it
, but have seen a few messages). I don't buy the argument. Clearly the inten
t of this draft and protocol action are to discourage use of 6to4,
15 matches
Mail list logo
