On 10/22/2010 7:12 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
The design of IPv6 is that DHCPv6 and RA work together. This is why
there is no method to express the default gateway using DHCPv6, that
task is handled by the RA. I suppose you could run DHCPv6 on a subnet
to give hosts addresses but never give them a de
On 10/21/2010 8:39 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
How so? We still have RA (with a high priority) that's the only way
DHCPv6 works. I guess there is a lot of misunderstanding about how
DHCPv6 works, even among the experts...
Actually, the last I checked, there are implementation of DHCPv6 without RA.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
Is t
On 10/21/2010 12:57 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 y
On 10/20/2010 9:30 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
Someone insisted to me yesterday the RFC1918-like address space was
the only way to provide a 'friendly' place for people to start their
journey in playing with IPv6. I think that the idea of real routable
IPs on a lab network daunts many people.
I
In message <4cbfc1d0.60...@apolix.co.za>, Graham Beneke writes:
> On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> >> Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes th
> is is used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses an
On 21/10/2010 02:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Someone advised me to use GUA instead of ULA. But since for my purposes this is
used for an IPv6 LAN would ULA not be the better choice?
IMHO, no. There's no disadvantage to using GUA and I personally
In message <4cbfa9bb.9030...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> ULA + PA can have the same problems, especially if your ULA is
> inter-organization ULA, which was one of the cases under discussion.
Which still isn't a problem. Presumably you want your inter-organization
traffic to use ULA a
On 10/20/2010 7:27 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
* Stream Control Transport Protocol, first spec'd in 2000 (couldn't
be deployed widely in IPv4 because of NATs)
"because of NATs" s/b "because certain parties refused to acknowledge
that encapsulation of SCTP in UDP would have operational advantages
On 10/20/2010 7:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message<4cbf9b7a.1000...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome
On 10/20/2010 7:15 PM, James Hess wrote:
Perhaps one day, there will be a truly reliable transport protocol,
and an API that allows a bind()
against multiple IPs and a connect()
to all a target host's IPs instead of just one, so both hosts can
learn of each other's IP addresses
that are offe
In message <4cbf9b7a.1000...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
> On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
> > both ULA and global addressing in your network.
>
> Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have b
On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
the same customer.
Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?
Part 3 will be when that same provi
On 10/20/2010 6:20 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
To make it clear, as it seems to be quite misunderstood, you'd have
both ULA and global addressing in your network.
Right. Just like to multihome with IPv6 you would have both PA addresses
from provider #1 and PA addresses from provider #2 in your netw
15 matches
Mail list logo
