Hi,
I think I might have already deleted subject matter a few days ago in re: BCP38.
What exactly are you trying to do?
I agree my general comment about the recent NTP weaknesses should be addressed
via IPv6 RFC may have been mis-understood.
I meant mostly that with IPv6 NAT goes away, all
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Michael DeMan na...@deman.com wrote:
I meant mostly that with IPv6 NAT goes away,
I don't know if this is true or not - and even if it is true, it's going to be
a long, long time before the IPv4 Internet goes away (like, maybe, pretty much
forever, heh).
An
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:24:08 -0800, Michael DeMan said:
An NTPv5 solution that could be done with NTP services already
Doesn't matter - the same people that aren't upgrading to a correctly
configured NTPv4 aren't going to upgrade to an NTPv5. No need at all
for a protocol increment (and
3 matches
Mail list logo
