On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:38:56PM -0400, Atticus wrote:
What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where
you've been for the last decade or so. There's are hundreds of services
using different ports,
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
between a network that
What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where
you've been for the last decade or so. There's are hundreds of services
using different ports, and tunneling them all makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, we
What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where
you've been for the last decade or so. There's are hundreds of services
using different ports, and tunneling them all makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, we
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:45:03 EDT, Atticus said:
What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where
you've been for the last decade or so.
I hate to say this, but all of you who are actually thinking
I (unfortunately) cannot get native IPv6 from my ISP at this time, but do
have several tunnels set up using Hurricane Electric's excellent tunnel
brokerage service. All my local systems are dual-stack, my public access
server has a routed /48 that I use to broker my own tunnels for devices
(like
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:14:46 EDT, Atticus said:
technology, and an inferior one at that. With IPSec compliance integrated
into the protocol itself, and the hundreds of other benefits, why try to
morph an old technology?
You *do* realize that IPv6 IPSec is the *exact same stuff* that's in
33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
As some people (who understand IPv4) know, there is a SINGLE
spare/unused bit in the IPv4 header that can be set to 0 or 1.
Some religions require that it be set to 0. Adult content is marked with a 1.
That single bit can be viewed
I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
On 7/24/10 3:26 PM, IPv3.com wrote:
33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
33-bit is a fucking retarded
isn't ipv3@gmail.com jim fleming?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg04279.html
(for reference)
pls to not be replying to the list when ipv3.com posts to nanog..
-Chris
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24
11 matches
Mail list logo
