A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9151
Title: Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA)
Suite Profile for TLS and DTLS 1.2 and 1.3
Author: D. Cooley
Status: Informational
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9212
Title: Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA)
Suite Cryptography for Secure Shell (SSH)
Author: N. Gajcowski,
M. Jenkins
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9206
Title: Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA)
Suite Cryptography for Internet Protocol Security
(IPsec)
Author: L. Corcoran
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 8756
Title: Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA)
Suite Profile of Certificate Management over
CMS
Author: M. Jenkins
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 8755
Title: Using Commercial National Security Algorithm
Suite Algorithms in Secure/Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions
Author: M
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 8603
Title: Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA)
Suite Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile
Author: M
At 23:42 08/12/03, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not sure if it needs to be a /32 or if it needs to be just a single
one, but I fully agree this should be documented very well and in a
central place. Buried somewhere on a RIR website isn't good enough. (Try
finding the the micro allocation
On 16-dec-03, at 12:06, jfcm wrote:
I suggest ISO should define an international trans network numbering
scheme that could be adopted as the IPv6.010 numbering plan, the same
way as the ccTLD list is the ISO 3166 2 letters list, and IDNA uses
unicodes etc.
The ISO is already in charge of NSAP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Joao Damas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BIG SNIP
No, no and definitely no!!!
It is one thing to put all IXP prefixes in the same block,
after all it
does not matter if they are not seen in the global Internet as, in
fact, they should not be
Hay,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:16:03PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is
leo vegoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's clear that the wording in the IPv6 policy document
should be improved. It's a bit ambiguous at the moment. We're keen to
help improve the text.
An extra don't slipped in there.
Sorry,
--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services
On 9 Dec, 2003, at 2:20, Jeroen Massar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[2 mails into one again]
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller
Hi Bill,
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Leo, this is the text we use for IX delegations. For CI uses, transit of
said prefix is a valid injection.
--
Exchange Point Announcement Statement
Our statement regarding the injection
On 10-dec-03, at 10:28, leo vegoda wrote:
http://lacnic.net/en/chapter-4.html
http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/ipv6-address-policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02
In fact, we
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8-dec-03, at 21:00, Paul Vixie wrote:
for example, bill says above that /35 routes
are being discouraged and that's probably true but by whom? and
where?
It is generally understood in the routing community that some kind of
prefix length
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10-dec-03, at 10:28, leo vegoda wrote:
http://lacnic.net/en/chapter-4.html
http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/ipv6-address-policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
% We assign small networks to IXPs.
%
% The document has the following in it reflecting this:
%
% CIDR block Smallest RIPE NCCSmallest RIPE NCC
% Allocation Assignment
% 2001:0600::/23 /35 /48
%
% Again, if people feel
Bill Manning;
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller than that.
This, if it happens, will be exactly opposed to
the IPv6 design goal, which was to discourage/prohibit
hardware/software
On 8 Dec 2003, at 10:14, Dean Anderson wrote:
Also, anycasting doesn't work for TCP.
Would you care to elaborate on doesn't work?
I agree. It is easy to create a blackhole, or even a DDOS on an
anycast
address. It is much harder to DDOS 600 IP addresses spread through
some
200 countries.
On 7 Dec 2003, at 07:21, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I don't think this is an oversight, I'm pretty sure this was
intentional. However, since in practice the BGP best path selection
algorithm boils down to looking at the AS path length and this has the
tendency to be the same length for many
% (i personally don't think a /35 route with just one host in it makes
% much sense,
%
% Agree.
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
is an open issue, (b)
Joe Abley;
I don't think this is an oversight, I'm pretty sure this was
intentional. However, since in practice the BGP best path selection
algorithm boils down to looking at the AS path length and this has the
tendency to be the same length for many paths, BGP is fairly useless
for deciding
% /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
% 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
% have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
%
% i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
% is an open
Joe Abley;
I'm afraid F servers does not follow the intention of my original
proposal of anycast root servers.
This may well be the case (I haven't read your original proposal).
The IDs have expired. I'm working on a revised one.
Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Paul Vixie wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@
Bill Manning wrote:
% b) that it's generally agreed that all the RIR's ought
% to have the same rules regarding microallocations,
(b) on the other hand, has any number of
legal implications... collusion, monopolies, etc.
But this is a example where uniformity is desirable on technical
Bill Manning wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
overkill... :)
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33,
On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I'm afraid F servers does not follow the intention of my original
proposal of anycast root servers.
This may well be the case (I haven't read your original proposal).
Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought to the contrary.
Finally, using
% Bill Manning wrote:
% /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
% 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
% -might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
% overkill... :)
%
% Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:17:00 GMT, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length filters
aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either way;
is there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[This should go to v6ops@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) ]
Zefram wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a
On 8-dec-03, at 22:01, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc)
So how are ISPs
[my apologies for burning so much bandwith]
On 8-dec-03, at 22:17, Zefram wrote:
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length
filters
aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine if somebody
flubs and withdraws a /12 and announces a /12 worth of /28
That's why I suggested relaxing the filters only within a designated
block. So (for IPv4) the /12 worth of /28s gets ignored, but the
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have highlighted to APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with many possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed what range if they request IPv6?
Don't tell me they do not need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain
At 11:21 AM +1200 12/09/2003, Franck Martin wrote:
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have highlighted to
APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with many
possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed what range if
Franck Martin wrote:
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have
highlighted to APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with
many possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed
what range if they request IPv6?
Don't tell me
% Root nameservers are a very different story of course...
%
% A /32 contains 65k /48's, so these IX blocks could provide for
% enough /48's for 65k IX's, thus unless that switch at the back
% of my desk, which connects 'neighbours' too is to be called an
% IX, because they have a linux router
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[2 mails into one again]
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller than that.
This, if it happens,
% I, personally, see absolutely no problem into making it the 'critical infra'
% or 'root server' prefix, when it is documented correctly. EP.NET acts as
% a neutral body, with this way kinda of a sub-RIR though. All root-servers
% should be using the space then btw, not a few, but all of
On 7-dec-03, at 2:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
... (Selecting the best path is pretty much an after thought in
BGP: the RFC doesn't even bother giving suggestions on how to do
this.)
congradulations, you're the millionth person to think that was an
oversight.
I don't think this is an oversight, I'm
On 7-dec-03, at 20:52, Paul Vixie wrote:
Just for fun, I cooked up a named.root file with only those IPv6
addresses
in it. This seems to confuse BIND such that its behavior becomes very
unpredictable.
hmmm. that configuration works fine for me here.
Ok... But does it also do anything useful?
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 10:18, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5-dec-03, at 17:16, Dean Anderson wrote:
Indeed, this is what they do when the agree to put the national root
nameservers in their own nameserver root configs. It is far easier to
have per-country stealth root slaves than it is
implemented with two different numbering
plans, we will never know if it (and each installed IPv6 system) supports
multiple numbering plans, creating ourselves a Y2K syndrom. So why not to
work on both, in parallel, since anyway national security will call for it?
I can't speak to the email
Iljitsch,
have we figures about the frequency of changes in the root file? Always
wanted to check that, but since it is of interest on a substantial duration
never did. The only serious figure I have is that ICANN decided that three
months and half to update major ccTLD secondaries was OK
I think there are three confluences which tend to support the notion of
national root nameservers:
1) Root Server scalability
2) Foriegn distrust of US control on the internet
3) Isolation due to technical or political issues.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5-dec-03, at
I don't know what jefsey means by IP zones
Louis and I met in 1973 and his datagram ideas, sliding window ideas for flow control,
influenced my thinking about TCP. Gerard LeLann, who worked in Louis Pouzin's group at
IRIA came to Stanford in 1974 to work on the TCP and Internet. IEN 48 refers
On 6-dec-03, at 23:04, Dean Anderson wrote:
I don't think this stealth business is a very good idea. If you want a
root servers somewhere, use anycast. That means importing BGP problems
into the DNS, which is iffy enough as it is.
That seems to argue against anycast...
If there were 65 actual
have we figures about the frequency of changes in the root file?
The serial # changes twice a day. The contents hardly as far as I
can see.
Always wanted to check that, but since it is of interest on a
substantial duration never did.
It is very easy to check. Just pull over the
%
% have we figures about the frequency of changes in the root file?
%
% The serial # changes twice a day. The contents hardly as far as I
% can see.
other contents change about three times a week.
% jaap
%
% PS. I wonder how soon someone will tell me I shouldn't be feeding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes:
... (Selecting the best path is pretty much an after thought in
BGP: the RFC doesn't even bother giving suggestions on how to do this.)
congradulations, you're the millionth person to think that was an oversight.
I don't have a problem with
jfcm wrote:
[..]
I suggest we
start a specialized WG with a clean shit study charter.
Well you've come to the right place! Don't get it much cleaner
than around here, that's for sure.
gja
Masataka Ohta writes:
No, it is not.
Unless individual logic gates are being designed into the hardware to
perform the desired function, it's firmware.
I haven't heard of this type of hard-wired logic being used for much of
anything except RISC processor instruction logic in ages. Given the
On 5-dec-03, at 1:37, Franck Martin wrote:
Finally before a root-server is installed somewhere, someone will do
an assessment of the local conditions and taylor it adequately. I want
countries to request installation of root servers, and I know about 20
Pacific Islands countries that need
At 21:22 02/12/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Hasn't this idea been killed enough? I am a newbie on the Internet
(only been here since 1988) and _I_ am fed up with this discussion.
Hi! Kurt,
did not see that one. I will respond it because it may help you
understanding. I am also a newbie as I
Indeed, this is what they do when the agree to put the national root
nameservers in their own nameserver root configs. It is far easier to
have per-country stealth root slaves than it is to make every nameserver
the stealth slave of every other domain in that country.
When that country is
--On Friday, 05 December, 2003 15:35 +0100 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc BoD)
who you may know. He specified the first mail program at
MIT, the scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones
(recently Vint recalled the Internet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Note that I did not mean my comment as sarcasm or irony. If I would
have, I would have put a :-) after it. I didn't. I am a newbie. I am
still having déja vu.
- - kurtis -
On fredag, dec 5, 2003, at 15:35 Europe/Stockholm, jfcm wrote:
At 21:22
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
note that f-root, i-root, j-root, k-root, and m-root are all doing anycast
now, and it's likely that even tonga would find that one or more of these
rootops could find a way to do a local install.
Apologies for taking this thread perhaps even further
At 05:12 05/12/03, Franck Martin wrote:
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 15:32, jfcm wrote:
Paul,
1. all this presumes that the root file is in good shape and has not been
tampered.
How do you know the data in the file you disseminate are not polluted
or changed?
Because somebody will complain...
On 5-dec-03, at 17:16, Dean Anderson wrote:
Indeed, this is what they do when the agree to put the national root
nameservers in their own nameserver root configs. It is far easier to
have per-country stealth root slaves than it is to make every
nameserver
the stealth slave of every other domain
Jefsey,
which we are you speaking on behalf of?
--On 27. november 2003 23:20 +0100 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While parallel issues start being discussed and better understood at
WSIS, we have next week a meeting on Internet national security,
sovereignty and innovation capacity.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it ...
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as required at either end. Such addressing allows
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it ...
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as
Anthony G. Atkielski;
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as required at either end. Such addressing allows unlimited ad
hoc extensibility at any time without upsetting any routing
Johnny Eriksson writes:
You can start designing the ASICs now. It won't be easy.
It worked with Strowger switches and crossbar mechanical exchanges; why
would it be more difficult with ASICs?
Masataka Ohta writes:
Unlimited? The limitation on public part is 20 digits.
That's just a matter of programming these days.
Ad hoc extension beyond hardware supported length
at that time will fatally hurt performance.
What hardware limits numbers to 20 digits today?
. This is a complex issue.
I just note that you never cared about Consumers organizationsn, while
a world e-consumer council would have given you the legitimacy of
billions and the weight to keep Gov partly at large, and satisfied. A
National Security Kit would then be one of the ICANN raisons d'être
At 09:21 03/12/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I agree and realize this. However, the let's take that argument out in the
open and not hide it behind national security.
I regret such an agressiveness. I simply listed suggestions I collected to
ask warning, advise, alternative to problems
Dear Masataka,
my interest in this is national security. I see a problem with IPv6 in two
areas.
1. the 001 numbering plan as inadequate to national interests - digital
soverignty, e-territory organization, law enforcement, security and
safetey, etc. related reasons (I do not discuss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree and realize this. However, the let's take that argument out
in the open and not hide it behind national security.
I regret such an agressiveness. I simply listed suggestions I
collected to ask warning, advise, alternative to problems
of
billions and the weight to keep Gov partly at large, and satisfied.
A
National Security Kit would then be one of the ICANN raisons d'être,
keeping Govs happy.
I think that the national governments that are thinking they need
control over ICANN in order to handle a national emergency simply
Anthony G. Atkielski;
Unlimited? The limitation on public part is 20 digits.
That's just a matter of programming these days.
On the Internet these days, it is a matter of hardware.
Ad hoc extension beyond hardware supported length
at that time will fatally hurt performance.
What hardware
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 09:00, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The post KPQuest updates are a good example of what Govs do not
want
anymore.
I can't make this sentence out. Do you mean the diminish of KPNQwest?
In that case, please explain. And
jfcm;
Dear Masataka,
my interest in this is national security. I see a problem with IPv6 in
two areas.
Only two?
IPv6 contains a lot of unnecessary features, such as stateless
autoconfiguration, and is too complex to be deployable.
Comments welcome.
As it is too complex, it naturally has a lot
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 12:16, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:44:00AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
There are now organisations installing root servers in all countries
that want one. If you are operating a ccTLD, you may want have sitting
next to your machines a root server,
On 5 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
my experience differs. when a root name server is present it has to be
fully fleshed out, because if it isn't working properly or it falls over
due to a ddos or if it's advertising a route but not answering queries,
then any other problem will be magnified a
Paul,
1. all this presumes that the root file is in good shape and has not been
tampered.
How do you know the data in the file you disseminate are not polluted
or changed?
2. where is the best documentation - from your own point of veiw - of a
root server organization.
thank you
jfc
At
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 15:32, jfcm wrote:
Paul,
1. all this presumes that the root file is in good shape and has not been
tampered.
How do you know the data in the file you disseminate are not polluted
or changed?
Because somebody will complain... ;)
Franck Martin
[EMAIL
Masataka Ohta writes:
On the Internet these days, it is a matter of hardware.
And the hardware is a matter of firmware.
and realize this. However, the let's take that argument out in
the open and not hide it behind national security. The countries I
have worked with, do have national disaster plans that can handle a IP
network completely cut off from the rest of the world. But those plans
are made together
See, that's the classic mistake: Everyone wants to divide the entire
address space RIGHT NOW, without any clue as to how the world will
evolve in years to come. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it certainly
That not correct. See:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space
Where it
Bob Hinden writes:
2) For now, IANA should limit its allocation of IPv6 unicast
address space to the range of addresses that start with binary
value 001. The rest of the global unicast address space
(approximately 85% of the IPv6 address space) is reserved for future
On 3 Dec 2003, Franck Martin wrote:
ITU is worried like hell, because the Internet is a process that escapes
the Telcos. The telcos in most of our world are in fact governments and
governments/ITU are saying dealing with country names is a thing of
national sovereignty. What they most of the
On 3-dec-03, at 21:21, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
It was well understood that it was important to keep most of the IPv6
address space open to allow for future use.
If it were well understood, nobody would have ever been foolish enough
to suggest blowing 2^125 addresses right up front. I've
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
You seem to assume that being frugal with address
space would make it possible to use addresess that
are much smaller than 128 bits.
I assume that if we are getting by with 2^32 addresses now, we don't
need 2^93 times that many any time in the foreseeable future.
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:53:57 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Maybe it's time to find a different way to route.
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it, Make sure you
do at least some back-of-envelope checks that it Does The Right Thing when
a single
Iljitsch;
We need to keep the size of the
global routing table in check, which means wasting a good deal of
address space.
That's not untrue. However, as the size of the global routing table
is limited, we don't need so much number of bits for routing.
61 bits, allowing 4 layers of routing each
Keith Moore writes:
This was shortsighted, just like having the notion of class built into
IPv4 addresses was shortsighted.
Just about everything about address allocation has always been
shortsighted.
I have a simple idea: Why not just define the first three /32 chunks of
the IPv6 address
Schiro, Dan writes:
This is a dangerous prospect. The company I work for makes a networking
stack and our IPv6 implementation expects the lower 64 bits to be the unique
interface identifier.
Does anyone see how wasteful this is? What's the likelihood of having
2^64 unique interfaces in the
On 2-dec-03, at 20:42, Schiro, Dan wrote:
Fortunately the mistake is easily rectified, so long
as software doesn't get into the habit of expecting the lower 64 bits
of an address to be a unique interface identifier.
This is a dangerous prospect. The company I work for makes a
networking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On fredag, nov 28, 2003, at 20:10 Europe/Stockholm, Anthony G.
Atkielski wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean now. However, the devision is a done deal as
RFC 3513 mandates that all unicast IPv6 addresses except the ones
starting with the bits 000
of that point...:-)
I just note that you never cared about Consumers organizationsn, while
a world e-consumer council would have given you the legitimacy of
billions and the weight to keep Gov partly at large, and satisfied. A
National Security Kit would then be one of the ICANN raisons d'être
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This being said, I note that this thread is only oriented to
prospective numbering issues. May I take from that that none of the
suggested propositions rises any concern ?
In particular, that there is no problem with two parallel roots file
if
On 2-dec-03, at 21:04, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Why dedicated /64 to anything? We are getting by just fine on /32 for
the whole world right now. Why is a sudden expansion of 2^32 required
RIGHT NOW?
Stateless autoconfiguration.
See, that's the classic mistake: Everyone wants to divide the
Bob Hinden writes:
It was well understood that it was important to keep most of the IPv6
address space open to allow for future use.
Why do we need 42,535,295,865,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
addresses right now, then?
Kurt Erik Lindqvist writes:
so you are making claims and comments on something you don't even have
bothered to read the basic documentation on. Wow.
Wait twenty years, and we'll see who's surprised.
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
