On 2013-02-27 4:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 27/02/2013 09:28, Brian Trammell wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I have a recurring remote participation
It is my understanding that for these types of reasons (and others), folks who
are adhering to Ramadan can eat while traveling and if they are sick.
And agreed to previous point that the southern hemisphere may have been less
impacting in this particular case (given overlap during IETF in
On 12-02-14 3:49 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
In that I completely agree with what Randy is saying, the point
that needs to be made is that this should not be officially
sanctioned as RFC-1918 space -- no manufacturer or programmer
should treat this netblock the same.
If some
Support Draft as written +1.
Victor K
On 12-02-14 12:38 PM, William Check bch...@ncta.com wrote:
+1, I support this draft Bill Check
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Thienpondt Hans wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14
+1
I support this draft!
Hadreil,
I will try and summarize the information in response to your query as best
as possible. I have left your your text below (for future readers), and
will discuss address assignment behaviours in both Mobile (3GPP) and
Wireline (Cable). I will let someone discuss DSL (which will have
Noel,
On 11-12-04 10:55 AM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
I ask because I gather there are a lot of situations where e.g. a cable
modem
has an ISP-local address on its ISP-facing side, and a global IP address
(which the customer gets) on the customer side. (I see this in checking
Joel
It's an absurdity that the clearly impossible is in fact the defacto
deployment model.
This is the case for this specific Wireless provider and the particular
APN you are connected to. The sum of all Wireless providers do not use
RFC1918 (some do, and some do not, and some use both
On 11-12-03 7:25 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
224/10 could be made to work with new equipement provided there was
also signaling that the equipment supported it. That doesn't help
ISP that have new customers with old equipment and no
Noel,
Opinion from an operator. There is a difference, and the reality is that
the space is unlikely to be used by enterprises and consumers.
Here is the difference. RFC1918 has been out (defined) for a long time,
so it's well know by operators, enterprise folks and some consumers.
There is a
CM
One question, though, that I wish to address to the authors of
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request and perhaps others: why
would not an allocation from 240/4 (the former Class E address
space) work for CGN space? I'm well aware that it would be very
difficult to use this as ordinary
Ron,
Folks,
On Thursday, December 1, the IESG deferred its decision regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request to the December 15 telechat.
The decision was deferred because:
- it is difficult. (We are choosing between the lesser of two evils.)
- a lively discussion on this mailing
Which problem did ISPs create?
By dragging their feet to the inevitable roll-out of v6 they checked
the demand for consumer electronics compatible with v6. If v6 connectivity
had been norm 6 years ago we'd have more v6-ready devices deployed today.
The problem is three part: Connectivity /
James,
In simpler terms, what I want is a document that clearly implies 6to4-PMT
is not applicable with this new Shared CGN Address Space. No, I am not
joking, and I'm very sorry that I had to bring up the topic of 6to4 again.
I appreciate your position. I am also biased as much as you
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 30/11/2011 05:46, Mark Andrews wrote:
In messagem2r50q42nn.wl%randy@**psg.com m2r50q42nn.wl%25ra...@psg.com,
Randy Bush writes:
skype etc. will learn. This does prevent the breakage it just makes
it more
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Chris Donley c.don...@cablelabs.comwrote:
Draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03:
+--++++--+--+
| Skype video | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| chat
Ralph,
Please note the following report:
WIDE Technical-Report in 2010 (DOC wide-tr-kato-as112-rep-01.pdf)
Report suggested that all three RFC1918 blocks are well utilized.
Regards,
Victor K
On 11-11-30 9:19 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:14 PM
I live in Toronto and love to hate it too!
At the end of the day.. Toronto is a nice venue.. But Winter is not a good
time (would not suggest Nov or March IETF here). Summers are best if
selected.
:)
Victor K
On 11-11-29 10:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov
IESG,
IMHO the allocation of such space would be extremely valuable to the
Internet Community by allowing operators to minimize the impact of
introducing CGN if required (which can be accomplished quite successfully
in a Dual Stack deployment while introducing IPv6).
The allocation of this
Randy
On 11-11-29 11:30 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
and all this is aside from the pnp, skype, ... and other breakage.
and, imiho, we can screw ipv4 life support.
Non-RFC1918 space is already used widely in Wireless Networks within CGN
Zones.
In fact I placed a number of Skype calls
19 matches
Mail list logo
