On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:33:03PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine
> > with less),
>
> Any reason you would want less? Any reason the ISP should give you
> less?
What I mean is that *if* the availability of /48 networks was an
Willy Tarreau writes:
> I agree on these points, but I'd like to figure what can be done to put
> a bit more pressure on ISPs to *always* provide IPv6.
Most ISPs are in it for the money. So what you can do is either to make
it more expensive to provide IPv4-only services or more profitable to
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 06/03/2018 10:58 PM, PKU.孙斌 wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>
This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's
On 06/03/2018 10:58 PM, PKU.孙斌 wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>>> This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's
>>> a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> > This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's
> > a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on the
> > Internet, but it looks like the draft
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 03:41:08PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> > This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's
> > a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on the
> > Internet, but it looks like the draft
On 06/03/2018 01:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> This is not an inconsequential mechanism that is being proposed. It's
> a modification to IP protocol that is intended to work on the
> Internet, but it looks like the draft hasn't been updated for two
> years and it is not adopted by any IETF
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Sam Patton wrote:
> Hello Willy, netdev,
>
> Thank you for your reply and advice. I couldn't agree more with you
> about containers and the exciting prospects there,
>
> as well as the ADSL scenario you mention.
>
> As far as application examples, check out this
On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 12:17:12PM -0400, Sam Patton wrote:
> As far as application examples, check out this simple netcat-like
> program I use for testing:
>
> https://github.com/EnIP/enhancedip/blob/master/userspace/netcat/netcat.c
>
> Lines 61-67 show how to connect directly via an EnIP
Hello Willy, netdev,
Thank you for your reply and advice. I couldn't agree more with you
about containers and the exciting prospects there,
as well as the ADSL scenario you mention.
As far as application examples, check out this simple netcat-like
program I use for testing:
Hello Sam,
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:48:28PM -0400, Sam Patton wrote:
> Hello!
>
> If you do not know what Enhanced IP is, read this post on netdev first:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg327242.html
>
>
> The Enhanced IP project presents:
>
> Enhanced IP v1.4
>
>
Hello!
If you do not know what Enhanced IP is, read this post on netdev first:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg327242.html
The Enhanced IP project presents:
Enhanced IP v1.4
The Enhanced IP (EnIP) code has been updated. It now builds with OpenWRT
barrier breaker (for
12 matches
Mail list logo
