in IP-KVMs.
I'm completely satisfied using iDRACs in a number of servers.
Just my $0.05.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2012/2/20 Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com:
- Original Message -
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
There are others. This one appears to be web/java based rather than VNC,
though
for CMs, not for CPE.
Just a note: as far as I can see available DOCSIS 3.0 CMTSes do not
support the ability of SLAAC for CMs currently (checked Casa and Cisco
uBR10K).
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/30 Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com:
Technically this is not true. SLAAC
for using /64 but this may be not sufficient for some
people.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/28 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com:
You can probably do it, but, what do you gain by doing so?
Owen
On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Hello everybody,
It is commonly agreed that /64
above 64 bits.
As for using EUI-64, unlike random or sequential generation it
provides predictable results that may be desired, e.g. for tracking
some device migration between different networks.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com:
Dmitry,
You could
configuration: it starts DHCPv6 negotiation
instead of auto-configuration.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:51 52PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each
I suppose router operating as proxy ND (similarly to local proxy ARP
in IPv4) can mitigate the threat as well. it is mentioned in 'DOCSIS
3.0 Requirements for IPv6 support'
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mule-cablelabs-docsis3-ipv6-00).
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Jonathan Lassoff j
Tore,
To comply with this policy we delegate at least /64 to end-users
gateways. But this policy does not cover the network between WAN
interfaces of CPE and ISP access gateway.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Tore Anderson tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com:
* Dmitry Cherkasov
I am determining
IPv6 Prefixes
on Inter-Router Links) can be mentioned here.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com:
Tore,
To comply with this policy we delegate at least /64 to end-users
gateways. But this policy does not cover the network between WAN
interfaces of CPE and ISP
And here is another useful resource:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-119/sp800-119.pdf,
particularly chapter 6.1.3 Vulnerabilities in IPv6.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Victor Kuarsingh victor.kuarsi...@gmail.com:
Dmitry et al,
I found Jeff's following comments to be quite
address of the device can easily be
obtained from its IPv6 address, but this does not seem like convincing
argument. What do you think?
Dmitry Cherkasov
. Anyway getting greater then /48 just because you do not want to
pollute DFZ is not justified.
Thank you.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/1 Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:39:57 -0400, Richard Barnes
richard.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Couldn't you also advertise the /48 from all
your advice: is this normal to distribute /48 by /56 parts across
locations or should we obtain separate /48 for each of them? Or maybe
we need /32 that can be split into multiple /48? Anyway we are not ISP
so /48 looks quite reasonable and sufficient for all our needs.
Thank you.
Dmitry Cherkasov
12 matches
Mail list logo
