This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Dec 13 05:06:13 CET 2011
Randy Bush wrote:
> have faith. they will come up with more excuses and someone else to
> blame. the reality is that v6 deployment used to be very difficult.
> it is fairly easy now,
Repeating what I recently wrote to IETF ML...
IPv6 is not operational, which is partly why most service
providers refuse it.
For example, to purposelessly enable multicast PMTUD, RFC2463
(ICMPv6) mandates routers generate ICMPv6 packet too big
against multicast packets, which causes ICMPv6 packet
implosions, which is not operational.
For further details, see my presentation at the last APNIC:
How Path MTU Discovery Doesn't work
http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0018/38214/pathMTU.pdf
W.r.t. your slides at Taipei IETF, 48bit address space with IPv4
address and port numbers is the end to end transparent water for
salmon. For the transparency, see, for example, rfc3102:
RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end-
to-end integrity of packets is maintained.
Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]