I've read this a couple of times and I find the security section (sec 8)
quite confusing. I am not a security expert but it appears to me that
it is not consistent.
In particular sec 8.2 says "AH [RFC-2402] must be supported." It then
goes on to say "there is no real need for AH" and in both s
James,
I would contact NTT in San Jose and what is called the PAIX. Both have
IPv6 offerings but I am not sure what the deal is at all.
Now that ISP have commerical grade IPv6 products from many vendors this
will change. The providers needed second release IPv6 commerical
product releases and no
Most of us run a 6to4 gateway and tunnel over our provider's
IPv4 network to one of the public 6to4 relays.
It's unfortunate that there still seem to be very few 6to4 relay routers
that are advertising a route to the "6to4 anycast address"
(2002:c058:6301::). For example, for me (in the San
> I'm still unsure about this insistence on /48 as a critical point of
> allocation.
renumbering is a lot more painful if you're trying to renumber
between prefixes of different lengths.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng
This is same situation as asian has except JP.
IPv6 is wholly experimental and used in each lab.
I'm looking forward to nice solution from V6OPS WG.
Daniel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Kempf
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:21
This is same situation as asian has except JP.
IPv6 is wholly experimental and used in each lab.
I'm looking forward to nice solution from V6OPS WG.
Daniel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Kempf
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:21
Bob Hinden write:
> If you contact them, suggest you mention your interest in
> IPv6. If enough
> people ask for it
Which is exactly what people should to get their ISP's going.
We had an AMS-IX IPv6 Awareness Day, at which many ISP's where
present. Checking http://www.sixxs.net/tools/gr
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> For the record, I am still completely against any proposal
> that takes over the normal 16 bit subnet field, i.e.
> generates a prefix longer than /48. It just isn't
> operationally convenient.
I'm still unsure about this insistence on /48 as a critical point of
alloc
> > But if you look at the requirements, it might be better
> > to take a more fundamental approach and look into the
> > separatiion of locator and identifier.
>
> Right. People don't care much about PI addresses if they have PI
> identifiers instead.
a true separation of locator and identifier
Ronald,
>> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> - We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will
>> see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises
>> and homes. No one seems to be disagreeing with this.
> Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> I don't know yet if I agree or not :-) I agree that it
> is a
Margaret,
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> - We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will
> see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises
> and homes. No one seems to be disagreeing with
> this.
Little disgression about the meaning of "PI": in many people minds, it
means "PI as we kn
James,
At 10:21 AM 12/11/2002, James Kempf wrote:
I'm in the process of upgrading my home computing infrastructure in order
to be
able to use IPv6. Does anybody know a retail ISP in the US that provides IPv6
service (specifically, in the SF Bay Area)?
I did a quick Google search and all the off
James,
> James Kempf wrote:
> I'm in the process of upgrading my home computing
> infrastructure in order to be able to use IPv6.
> Does anybody know a retail ISP in the US that
> provides IPv6 service (specifically, in the SF Bay
> Area)?
I am not aware of any at a reasonable price. I'm sure tha
Hi James,
At 10:21 AM 12/11/2002 -0800, James Kempf wrote:
I'm in the process of upgrading my home computing infrastructure in order
to be
able to use IPv6.
Great!
Does anybody know a retail ISP in the US that provides IPv6
service (specifically, in the SF Bay Area)?
Unfortunately, I don't
I'm in the process of upgrading my home computing infrastructure in order to be
able to use IPv6. Does anybody know a retail ISP in the US that provides IPv6
service (specifically, in the SF Bay Area)?
I did a quick Google search and all the offerings seem to be for backbone
service.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 09:50:04 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> - We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will
> see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises
> and homes. No one seems to be disagreeing with
> this.
I don't kno
For the record, I am still completely against any proposal
that takes over the normal 16 bit subnet field, i.e.
generates a prefix longer than /48. It just isn't
operationally convenient.
Brian
IETF IPng Working Group Mailin
Digambar Rasal wrote:
> We usually specify Ipv4 subnet like 255.255.255.0 or /8 so .
> But in Ipv6 while mentioning address we specify it /64 or /48 .
You might lookup the word 'CIDR' or Classless Inter Domain Routing.
In the /x, the x represents the number of bits for the part of the
address th
Hi Digambar,
At 04:53 PM 12/11/2002 +0530, Digambar Rasal wrote:
We usually specify Ipv4 subnet like 255.255.255.0 or /8 so . But in Ipv6
while mentioning address we specify it /64 or /48 .
As you may already know, a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 is actually
a /24. This means that the first 24
We usually specify Ipv4 subnet like 255.255.255.0 or /8 so . But in Ipv6
while mentioning address we specify it /64 or /48 .
Does both representation have same meaning ? More specifically i will like
to know whether the Ipv6 subnetting is similar to ipv4 or differs ? Any RFC
or document pertaining
20 matches
Mail list logo
