On 03/11/2012 07:44, Randy wrote:
Veering off this topic's course, Is there any issue with addresses like
this ?
2001:470:1f00:1aa:abad:babe:8:beef I have a bunch of these type
'addresses' configured for my various machines.
I make it a point to come up with some sort of 'hex' speak
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:44 -0500, Randy wrote:
Veering off this topic's course, Is there any issue with addresses like
this ?
2001:470:1f00:1aa:abad:babe:8:beef I have a bunch of these type
'addresses' configured for my various machines.
I make it a point to come up with some sort of
one router along the path showing loss that does not continue to
affect the rest of the path simply means the cpu on that router
is a bit too busy to respond to icmp messages
trivial footnote: some folk configure some routers to rate limit
icmp
randy
* Owen DeLong
On Nov 2, 2012, at 02:52 , Tore Anderson
tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com wrote:
It absolutely does make sense, especially in the case of IPv4/IPv6
translation. For example, when using NAT64, 64:ff9b::192.0.2.33
is an example of a valid IPv6 address that maps to
Thank you all who answered. I got a few good leads to follow, and
information on operation gotchas.
***Stefan
On Nov 3, 2012, at 04:19 , Tore Anderson tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com
wrote:
* Owen DeLong
On Nov 2, 2012, at 02:52 , Tore Anderson
tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com wrote:
It absolutely does make sense, especially in the case of IPv4/IPv6
translation. For example, when using
On 11/1/12 2:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are better ways to avoid neighbor exhaustion attacks unless you have
attackers
inside your network.
All of the migrations are compromises of one sort or another. We thought
this one was important enough to include in an informational status
RFC
On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
We should better introduce partially decimal format for
IPv6 addresses or, better, avoid IPv6 entirely.
With respect, it is already possible to use the decimal subset if you wish. For
example, you could write
2001:dba::192:168:2:1
It
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
one router along the path showing loss that does not continue to
affect the rest of the path simply means the cpu on that router
is a bit too busy to respond to icmp messages
trivial footnote: some folk configure some routers to
--- On Sat, 11/3/12, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: qwest.net dropping packets... wife would like someone to pick
them up please...
To: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
10 matches
Mail list logo
