On 17/09/2007, at 2:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we will never move to IPv6 if vendors don't do things
like the one in the Airport. However, in order to make this
transition phase where there may be a possible degradation
of the RTT, we need to cooperation of the
On 17-sep-2007, at 19:06, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
interface segregated.
For debugging
On 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15-sep-2007, at 21:25, Barrett Lyon wrote:
The other thought that occurred to me, does FF/Safari/IE have any
ability to default back to v4 if v6 is not working or behaving
badly? This could be a helpful transition feature but
On 9/17/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17-sep-2007, at 19:06, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
was a good idea, but if this is truly a
Xin Liu wrote:
If a router's clock is off by more than 5 minutes, it cannot forward
packets
this is false. i suggest you do more reading.
randy
At 4:47 PM -0400 9/17/07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 9/17/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17-sep-2007, at 19:06, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a
Dear Nanogers,
We are a bunch of academic researchers interested in Internet
security. We notice that some research papers require that BGP router
clocks be globally synchronized to a 5-minute granularity. If a
router's clock is off by more than 5 minutes, it cannot forward
packets, but there's
Agreed.
That does seem strange..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:11 PM
To: Xin Liu
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Question on Loosely Synchronized Router Clocks
Xin Liu wrote:
If a
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:15:38 EDT, John Curran said:
In addition, if the record is added for the node, instead of
service as recommended, all the services of the node should be IPv6-
enabled prior to adding the resource record.
Not a problem for names which are single
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:03:33 -0700
From: Xin Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Nanogers,
We are a bunch of academic researchers interested in Internet
security. We notice that some research papers require that BGP router
clocks be globally synchronized to a
At 1:06 PM -0400 9/17/07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
interface segregated.
RFC 4472 has an
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:28:45 PDT, Kevin Oberman said:
I had a router that lost it's NTP servers and was off by about 20
minutes. The only obvious problem was the timestamps in syslog. (That's
what alarmed to cause us to notice and fix it.)
Trying to correlate logfiles with more than a
i conversed offline with the OP. he was reading a sigcomm research
paper and confusing it with the internet.
randy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:28:45 PDT, Kevin Oberman said:
I had a router that lost it's NTP servers and was off by about 20
minutes. The only obvious problem was the timestamps in syslog. (That's
what alarmed to cause us to notice and fix it.)
Trying to correlate
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:22:12 -0400
From: Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:28:45 PDT, Kevin Oberman said:
I had a router that lost it's NTP servers and was off by about 20
minutes. The only obvious problem was the timestamps in syslog.
Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify.
We are interested in a number of questions:
1. Can we assume loosely synchronized router clocks in the Internet,
or we have to make absolutely no assumption about router clocks at
all?
2. If the router clocks are indeed loosely synchronized, what is the
IMHO:
What ever solution you end up proposing should able to handle (3) and should
work with arbitrary boundaries for (1) (2).
We don't want to add another failure mode to the network that depends on
time synchronization.
You don't want to shift the problem from BGP to NTP.
Regards
Bora
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:15:38 EDT, John Curran said:
In addition, if the record is added for the node, instead of
service as recommended, all the services of the node should be IPv6-
enabled prior to adding the resource record.
Not a problem for
Xin Liu wrote:
1. Can we assume loosely synchronized router clocks in the Internet,
or we have to make absolutely no assumption about router clocks at
all?
Make no assumption. I've seen plenty of routers who aren't even on the
correct year. Routers can work just fine while thinking its
Xin Liu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify.
We are interested in a number of questions:
1. Can we assume loosely synchronized router clocks in the Internet,
or we have to make absolutely no assumption about router clocks at
all?
Make no assumption.
2. If
Getting back to my original discussion with Barrett, what should we do
about naming? I initially though that segregating v6 in a subdomain
was a good idea, but if this is truly a migration, v4 should be the
interface segregated.
Personally I find separation of the A/ somewhat of a
On 9/17/07, Barrett Lyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a totally unrelated note: Not to make any accusation on the
security of the end-point tunnel network what-so-ever, but an
entirely other issue is the tiny bit of a security conundrum that
default tunnels create -- tunneling traffic to
22 matches
Mail list logo
