On 10/3/07, Mark Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The value of network perimeterisation as a security measure, of which
NAT is a method, is being questioned significantly by network security
people.
Mark,
The discussion at hand is whether the absence of NAT creates a drag on
IPv6 deployment.
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if there was a reasonable translation mechanism
available which allowed IPv6-only end systems to access
IPv4-only content, I think the picture would look quite
different.
Doesn't deploying a 6to4 relay in the content
At 04:07 PM 10/2/2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.
O
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Abley) wrote:
6to4 (for content- or access-focussed networks) is surely a solution
to the problem of I have no good way to acquire IPv6 transit;
It solves another problem as well, like I cannot go v6 to
my servers because my load balancing and packet filtering
black
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you care to wager, I'll take some of that action. Without
a relatively transparent mechanism for IPv6-only hosts to
access IPv4-only sites this isn't going to happen. We don't
have such a mechanism built and won't have it deployed
On 10/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As mentioned, 6to4 doesn't do what you seem to think it does.
Its not a solution to the problem of IPv6 endpoints trying to
talk to IPv4 endpoints.
I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what
is wrong with
There have been several news stories today about Myanmar's government
turning off the country's Internet connectivity to suppress news coming
out of the country (for instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/asia/04info.html?ref=world).
Doing some poking at it earlier today, here's
At 08:04 PM 10/3/2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only
killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought
about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality.
What occurred
On 10/4/07, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the 6 hour sampling, I have to assume that there have been
other short term re-appearances of routes to Burma.
Whether this is due to internal struggles, accidents, or urgent needs
for data transfer I cannot say.
I believe the NYT
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Daniel Senie wrote:
BTW, thanks for bringing this thread back to the question of creating
demand for IPv6. There's plenty of anti-NAT activity on other
threads. Some constructive discussion over ways to create incentives
to deploy IPv6 is worthwhile. The most common
10 matches
Mail list logo
