From nancyana@yahoo.com Sat Dec 01 10:42:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyUTs-00013Y-70; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:42:12 -0500 Received: from [89.108.44.17] (helo=computer) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyUTp-0006tp-Q4; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:42:12 -0500 Reply-To: From: "m7m7 نانسي" Subject: في خدمتكم Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:42:08 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ba9b8496764663b12c333825fbf6b3d معلومة

معلومة                                                m3loma

 

نافذة للحياة العصرية

 

 

 

خدمة الأبراج اليومية

 

اشترك في القائمة البريدية مجانا لتصلكم نشرتنا " برجك اليوم "

 

من قسم سر الأبراج المفضل للعديد من مستخدمي الانترنت

 

 

معلومة . كوم

 

الموقع العربي الشامل

 

www.m3loma.com

 

منتدى معلومة : ملتقى الشباب والشابات العرب

 

اغاني – صور – كروت تهنئة – العاب – فيديو  

أزياء – رجيم – طبخ – تغذية   

تعارف – زواج – دردشة

 

شبكة إخبارية تحدث على مدار الساعة

 

نكت – شعر – موسوعات ثقافية وعلمية

 

خدماتنا لا حصر  لها تتوسع يوميا

 

في انتظاركم

-----

  

 

From MichellefopChilds@annapolissailing.com Sat Dec 01 18:17:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IybaN-0001xN-EL; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:17:23 -0500 Received: from auh-as49828.alshamil.net.ae ([86.97.180.44] helo=30ad11bef13e427.domain.invalid) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IybaM-0004r4-79; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:17:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host13637907.annapolissailing.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id TlyDwDfO55.123567.jnz.0lM.9398012672938 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:18:41 +0800 Message-ID: <16a86601c83470$921e4d20$02fea8c0@30ad11bef13e427> From: "Amanda Friedman" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_16A862_01C83470.921BDC20-- From MurielclausenMarino@elysee.fr Sat Dec 01 21:21:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyeS5-0003QQ-LT; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:21:01 -0500 Received: from pc-124-208-46-190.cm.vtr.net ([190.46.208.124] helo=cyborg9.mshome.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyeS5-0000lN-3k; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:21:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host57582782.elysee.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id l0LvwCYq39.365052.1YV.D45.5650116731422 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:45:58 +0400 Message-ID: <122cc01c83485$1d662fb0$0c00a8c0@CYBORG9> From: "Dianna Fountain" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_122C8_01C83485.1D662FB0-- From AlexandriatemporalKearney@foxnews.com Sun Dec 02 00:18:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyhEI-0002Dl-Dp; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:18:58 -0500 Received: from adsl-154-32-182.asm.bellsouth.net ([68.154.32.182] helo=yourbcb92268a3) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyhEI-0002oN-0x; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:18:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host32489831.foxnews.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id ryseqIl388.064070.ziH.A7v.1353413345115 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:18:32 +0500 Message-ID: <5bddc01c834a2$d3792f60$6400a8c0@YOURBCB92268A3> From: "Tia Whittaker" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_5BDD8_01C834A2.D3792F60-- From DannyhankelMcdonald@cbsnews.com Sun Dec 02 03:18:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyk1Z-0001ZA-R0; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:18:01 -0500 Received: from [61.57.10.202] (helo=888tigerfe839a) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyk1A-0007hY-ME; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:17:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host54143645.cbsnews.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id uiD4i7fp91.741957.s1p.bnG.1847344179277 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:16:56 -0800 Message-ID: <1134b01c834bb$c944b0f0$ca0a393d@888tigerfe839a> From: "Marvin Owens" To: Subject: Approval process Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:16:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_11347_01C834BB.C944B0F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_11347_01C834BB.C944B0F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_11347_01C834BB.C944B0F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_11347_01C834BB.C944B0F0-- From Lalonde@frantzen.de Sun Dec 02 04:30:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyl9q-0006Ku-NV for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:30:38 -0500 Received: from [201.51.254.78] (helo=20151253176.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyl9p-0000xo-Pg for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:30:38 -0500 Received: from CASA ([163.114.121.2] helo=CASA) by 20151253176.user.veloxzone.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1nkKxg-000AUT-rA for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:31:04 -0200 Message-ID: <000c01c834c6$03648f30$b0fd33c9@CASA> From: "Carmen Lalonde" To: Subject: esdims Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:30:44 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C834B5.3FDBBF30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071201-0, 01/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C834B5.3FDBBF30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable tired of being just mr average to the ladies? http://www.gggsam.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C834B5.3FDBBF30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
tired of being just mr average to the ladies? http://www.gggsam.com/
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C834B5.3FDBBF30-- From JosiahpatrolmenRosales@lohud.com Sun Dec 02 09:56:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyqF3-0001K2-3o; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:56:21 -0500 Received: from blfd-4d0865da.pool.mediaways.net ([77.8.101.218] helo=xayn17ov1dmfgq) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyqEw-0002wa-Jh; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:56:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host19549731.lohud.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id M9pFD5Bu29.563515.BRF.XT1.8832416358551 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:55:58 -0100 Message-ID: <5881301c834f3$7a6b78a0$2101a8c0@xayn17ov1dmfgq> From: "Norberto Witt" To: Subject: Your family Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:55:58 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_5880F_01C834F3.7A6B78A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_5880F_01C834F3.7A6B78A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_5880F_01C834F3.7A6B78A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_5880F_01C834F3.7A6B78A0-- From gasper@alanpelayo.com Sun Dec 02 13:36:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IytgQ-0006Cl-OU for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:36:50 -0500 Received: from [151.53.11.52] (helo=[151.53.11.52]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IytgQ-0004Qd-10 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:36:50 -0500 Received: from 2fe069e1a7764cd ([147.110.107.86]:25156 "EHLO 2fe069e1a7764cd" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [151.53.11.52] with ESMTP id S22OCJFLXEGXNBRV (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:37:07 +0100 Message-ID: <482C4033.6E66A485@alanpelayo.com> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:36:49 +0100 From: "gasper Max" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: nesoksis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070607000802080004000408" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------070607000802080004000408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit do you really want to be average all the time? or do you really want to excell? boost your manhood with this. http://www.omogenio.com/ --------------070607000802080004000408 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit do you really want to be average all the time? or do you really want
to excell? boost your manhood with this. http://www.omogenio.com/
--------------070607000802080004000408-- From sammy@avenuesupply.com Sun Dec 02 14:02:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyu5Y-0001eO-9q for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:02:48 -0500 Received: from [87.203.83.241] (helo=athedsl-84643.home.otenet.gr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyu5X-0007oT-Bm for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:02:48 -0500 Received: from [87.203.83.241] by dmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:02:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c83515$0644a0b5$cb3eafbd@cxndi> From: "Ford" To: Subject: [4]: Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:15:25 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We offer the software for downloads only. http://lpolqed.cheaprealoem.net From ConsuelosomersRedmond@brownsvilleherald.com Sun Dec 02 15:28:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvQa-0004qR-Ld; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:28:36 -0500 Received: from [216.144.113.205] (helo=armin.cooptel.qc.ca) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvQX-0002Ep-CI; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:28:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host28832233.brownsvilleherald.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id XXG1O3Ga81.418615.qmj.x43.1889818519177 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:28:10 +0500 Message-ID: <7e6ab01c83521$e5719c00$cd7190d8@Armin> From: "Debora Sumner" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_7E6A7_01C83521.E5719C00-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 02 17:23:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyxDI-0003YV-EC for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyxDG-0000Gx-8N for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iyx7B-000DCy-D3 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:16:41 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iyx70-000DCA-Iq for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:16:36 +0000 Received: from dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org (dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org [130.129.22.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB2MGEdr079189 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:16:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: Christian Huitema , Gert Doering , "todd@fries.net" , R?mi Denis-Courmont , v6ops Message-Id: <52C74C0C-2F99-45D3-9E4B-0A6756710C6F@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Erik Nordmark In-Reply-To: <47505457.6040701@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: "DNS-4to6 automatic mapping" - No more DNS-ALGs & 6then4 DNSqueries Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:16:18 -0800 References: <20071129042620.GD12385@fries.net> <873669b00789260010a85fd50b0d6823@chewa.net> <20071129122846.GC14065@fries.net> <200711292019.56452.rdenis@simphalempin.com> <20071129182832.GB6333@fries.net> <20071129184814.GH69215@Space.Net> <20071129185023.GE6333@fries.net> <20071129201058.GI69215@Space.Net> <47505457.6040701@sun.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 On 30 nov 2007, at 10:20, Erik Nordmark wrote: > Or something like: > https://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/net/ > Socket.html#Socket(java.lang.String,%20int) Just for fun, have a look at both https://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/api/java/net/InetAddress.html and https://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/net/InetAddress.html and see if you can spot the differences. :-) From Eaton@truncale.com Mon Dec 03 02:27:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz5iB-0000R9-Gj for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:27:27 -0500 Received: from [80.80.62.61] (helo=[80.80.62.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz5iB-0002pm-0W for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:27:27 -0500 Received: from ntveljko ([193.137.177.143] helo=ntveljko) by internet.comping.hr ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1VISOO-000BOE-Um for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <7D2B7534.5FADBF0E@truncale.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:27:20 +0100 From: "Udo Eaton" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: inobudua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 average dicks get average hoes. Bust out on all the babes when you increase your piece by up to 3 full inches http://odlion.com/ From party-there@airsystems-inc.com Mon Dec 03 04:53:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz7zY-0002MC-CP for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:53:32 -0500 Received: from host185-3-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.10.3.185]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz7zX-0003xo-Dn for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:53:31 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer ([183.190.131.197]:8966 "EHLO oemcomputer" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [79.10.3.185] with ESMTP id S22JCKXFCUYPUAFD (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:54:10 +0100 Message-ID: <80E3CF6E.808CF31D@airsystems-inc.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:53:32 +0100 From: "party there" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: 1scuffle Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071202-0, 02/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 i was scared of blowing my load to quick, it happened all the time
but not now, i can fuck non stop. http://olyaana.com/
From AJ173@aparna.com Mon Dec 03 07:53:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzAnl-0000bI-PK for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:53:33 -0500 Received: from [151.63.88.5] (helo=[151.77.150.239]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzAni-0002JR-Tt for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:53:31 -0500 Received: from PC15-MONICA ([170.122.8.128] helo=PC15-MONICA) by [151.77.150.239] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1zCnEc-000STK-Qg for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:54:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:53:34 +0100 From: "AJ Veras" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: muwbak Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed keep it rock solid everytime and all night long http://ohppr.com/
From maryaLiberg@dgbatchelor.com Mon Dec 03 11:30:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEBb-00066O-Jt for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:30:23 -0500 Received: from [189.7.7.211] (helo=bd0707d3.virtua.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEBa-0005K3-Nl for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:30:23 -0500 Received: by 10.177.232.138 with SMTP id oVVSyFySfEDFy; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:30:12 -0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.142.106 with SMTP id CjNJCrXqsRMqNa.2946536147845; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:30:10 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <50D39801.6CC60FE8@dgbatchelor.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:30:07 -0200 From: "marya Liberg" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: rednowrm Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020208030608000100040700" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------020208030608000100040700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit marriage break up? take a look downstairs and see if you can improve your dick size http://www.clubbozi.com/ --------------020208030608000100040700 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit marriage break up? take a look downstairs and see if you can improve
your dick size http://www.clubbozi.com/
--------------020208030608000100040700-- From angelhild@dgbatchelor.com Mon Dec 03 11:38:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEJ2-0000mM-A3 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:38:04 -0500 Received: from [189.7.7.211] (helo=bd0707d3.virtua.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEJ1-0006Lb-M2 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:38:04 -0500 Received: from cliente ([134.125.152.104]:1348 "EHLO cliente" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by bd0707d3.virtua.com.br with ESMTP id S22ZELKCTZHYTGRI (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:38:32 -0200 Message-ID: <1C413292.EBD77701@dgbatchelor.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:37:53 -0200 From: "angel hild" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: reggem Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed i got no probs taking the girls home now, sometimes more than 1 http://comoot.com/
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 11:52:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEXD-0007lf-Nv for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:52:43 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEXD-0006N9-B4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:52:43 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzER6-000HEk-6O for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:46:24 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [32.97.110.150] (helo=e32.co.us.ibm.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzEQr-000HDM-Fn for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:46:18 +0000 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB3FieG9013250 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:44:40 -0500 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lB3GjoeN105404 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:45:55 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB3GjnPq003765 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:45:49 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (wecm-9-67-194-205.wecm.ibm.com [9.67.194.205]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB3GjldO003519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:45:48 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id lB3Gjkdq022963 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:45:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: IPv6 Operations Subject: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:45:45 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 I'd like to call attention to a revised version of the previously expired document (the previous version was dated June, 2006). It was revved in response to discussion that occurred on the ietf mailing list a couple of months ago. Plus, the topic continues to receive attention within the RIRs. I did not ask for agenda time as I think it better to comment on the list, based on the wording that is in the document. The document is short enough that I think the best think for people to do is just read it and then comment here on the list. That said, I do point out the common complaint that giving home users and businesses the same amount of address space strikes some people as absurd. Also, I better clarify the motivations behind the original 3177 recommendations, to make clear that changing the boundary to something else needs to (and can) still satisfy the original motivations. Finally, I am sending this to v6ops (rather than 6man) for discussion because I believe the end site boundary is more of an operational issue than an architectural one. Thomas From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 16:38:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzIzl-0004TG-7v for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:38:29 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzIzk-00060H-1l for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:38:29 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzIuf-000I4Y-4d for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:33:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzItv-000I1C-3b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:32:50 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2007 13:32:26 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB3LWQ4k007420; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:32:26 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB3LWKqb018895; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:32:26 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:32:20 -0800 Received: from [130.129.68.111] ([10.21.124.88]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:32:20 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <0546CF6C-6CBF-489E-A347-C807104081DF@cisco.com> Cc: IETF V6OPS WG , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6 to informational Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:32:10 -0800 To: v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 21:32:20.0124 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBFFF5C0:01C835F3] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=10067; t=1196717546; x=1197581546; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6=20to=20informational |Sender:=20; bh=gVQ3fZCRBisHRNkkrNCQBI0hmdcZjgT32wGNwp0UsKg=; b=YqXBgVl/VEQrCyu779EelvSLuM9ngXOcmwzBWg7JjPpQ4eT8kR6ZBRd0y1CdV/WZ1Cd2fhLZ IZS4BYCaPwpAeD1JNFLyQIfnQKFsBNSh6w0uPMYVAksKGAHT8U+qEZ6j; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 2a9ffb6f997442a3b543bcdaf483b990 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Fred Baker > Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is > ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I have read the document, and believe that it is ready for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any > concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been > performed? This document encompasses recommendations that have come forward in various documents and are accumulated together here. It has experienced extensive review and update, as evidenced in its -03 numbering and the long list of names in its acknowledgements. It also builds on the experience in IPv4 with RFC 3330, which has similar provisions for similar address usages. In addition, it doesn't actually specify new addresses or address usage. What it does is point to various RFCs (4291, 3056, 3964, etc) where different address usages are specified and bring them into one place where an operator can deal with them without extensive research. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., > security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, > internationalization or XML? No. In earlier versions there were some controversial recommendations, but these have been removed to make the document a clear example of consensus guidance. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or > the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is > uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns > whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has > discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to > advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR > disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please > include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG > discussion and conclusion on this issue. One could argue that there was no need for RFC 3330, as the address usages it specified were all called out in other documents. However, that would force the network operator to review all possible RFCs and hope he hit all the right cases. Similarly here. I believe that the document is needed, for the same reason that RFC 3330 is needed - to pull into one place the information a network operator needs on this topic. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong working group consensus across a fairly broad operational spectrum. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated > extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict > in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered > into the ID Tracker.) no > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID- > Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). > Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. > Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such > as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? the document includes two informational references to RFCs that are obsolete - it mentions RFCs 1897, 2471, and 3701, which successively obsolete each other. This is included for historical purposes, to whit: 5f00::/8 were the addresses of the first instance of the 6bone experimental network [RFC1897]. 3ffe::/16 were the addresses of the second instance of the 6bone experimental network [RFC2471]. Both 5f00::/8 and 3ffe::/16 were returned to IANA [RFC3701]. These addresses are subject to future allocation, similar to current unallocated address space. Addresses within this block should not appear on the public Internet until they are reallocated. [RFC1897] Hinden, R. and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", RFC 1897, January 1996. [RFC2471] Hinden, R., Fink, R., and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", RFC 2471, December 1998. [RFC3701] Fink, R. and R. Hinden, "6bone (IPv6 Testing Address Allocation) Phaseout", RFC 3701, March 2004. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? yes it has > Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for > advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative > references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are > there normative references that are downward references, as > described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to > support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them > [RFC3967]. All of the references are to published RFCs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the > document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are > reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA > registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new > registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the > registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does > it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. > If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can > appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This document has no actions for IANA, and its IANA considerations say as much. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, > BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an > automated checker? The document contains no formal language of that type. We could discuss boilerplate :-) > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement > Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" > announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement > contains the following sections: > Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the > abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or > introduction. The abstract reads: This document describes the global and other specialized IPv6 address blocks.It does not address IPv6 address space assigned to operators and users through the Regional Internet Registries. These descriptions are useful for route and IP filtering, for documentation and other purposes. > Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is > worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular > points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? The big thing to note was the level of review and the willingness of Marc to respond to the review. > Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the > protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan > to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit > special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that > resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had > no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or > other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of > a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This is not a protocol; it is in essence a BGP policy filtering recommendation. It is fairly widely implemented in IPv6 networks. idnits 2.05.02 tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- guidelines.txt: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Informational - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1897 (Obsoleted by RFC 2471) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2471 (Obsoleted by RFC 3701) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHVHXbbjEdbHIsm0MRAqwHAKCu7AwCG0cEv2etrnSUrjIZwodqNACePBAU vM1IWKWgFqhF1Qo7AEOpI90= =9cpf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 16:58:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJIn-00067j-Eg for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:58:09 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJIm-0006uR-9G for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:58:09 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJGh-000Jyx-Mg for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:55:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJG3-000Ju2-Si for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:55:41 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2007 13:55:18 -0800 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB3LtJgS019381; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:55:19 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB3Lt4gm015344; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:55:19 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:55:11 -0800 Received: from [130.129.68.111] ([10.21.124.88]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:55:10 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: IETF V6OPS WG , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon to informational Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:55:00 -0800 To: v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 21:55:10.0727 (UTC) FILETIME=[2CF16170:01C835F7] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=9657; t=1196718919; x=1197582919; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon=20to=20informational |Sender:=20; bh=SDoGOhIpJ14RVuTgCZkm3VxqEi8liAx/CvOxu61KoCI=; b=mjmn65rGwRbqZdx8KnC3M/zE0TrtcgEp0rAdQvWBLmbkQRxjbED1HRsYuPWm9EhyzjT4b3lc ARxM5T+QyKgwy4fYYOcBBurkqHfWo0CiE44xHrVJlT3TL/1YBPdh7nj+; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 2b2ad76aced9b1d558e34a970a85c027 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Fred Baker > Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is > ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes I do. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any > concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been > performed? Yes, it has. This document grew out of discussions among various networks along with Cisco as a vendor, and addressing issues that they each had. This has been presented to the working group twice, each time with some discussion but few consensus problems. The operational recommendations it makes are in no sense exhaustive, but they do represent practices that have been proven in the field. One could argue that it should be BCP, and probably should be taken to that status at some future time. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., > security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, > internationalization or XML? It has had operational review, being largely written and commented on by operators. It doesn't especially bring up the other issues asked about here, and so does not require their review beyond assuring themselves that this is the case. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or > the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is > uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns > whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has > discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to > advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR > disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please > include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG > discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Working Group consensus is fairly strong behind the document, as demonstrated in the working group discussions. There is not a lot of list discussion, but there has been good discussion and solid support in face-to-face meetings. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated > extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict > in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered > into the ID Tracker.) no. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? Yes. The idnits tool notes a bit of text that looks like a reference but is not, and three referenced documents were obsoleted by new RFCs in September. I believe that the RFC Editor can address the three references if instructed to in a note, but if there are other updates required the authors could pick up the references when doing so. > (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http:// > tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; > this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal > review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and > URI type reviews? > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Yes > Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for > advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative > references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are > there normative references that are downward references, as > described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to > support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them > [RFC3967]. no. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the > document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are > reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA > registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new > registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the > registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does > it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. > If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can > appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? There are no extra IANA consideration for this document, and the document states as much. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, > BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an > automated checker? there is no formal language of this type in the document. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement > Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" > announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement > contains the following sections: > Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the > abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or > introduction. the abstract reads: One fundamental aspect of any IP communications infrastructure is its addressing plan. With its new address architecture and allocation policies, the introduction of IPv6 into a network means that network designers and operators need to reconsider their existing approaches to network addressing. Lack of guidelines on handling this aspect of network design could slow down the deployment and integration of IPv6. This document aims to provide the information and recommendations relevant to planning the addressing aspects of IPv6 deployments. The document also provides IPv6 addressing case studies for both an enterprise and an ISP network. > Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is > worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular > points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? not really. > Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the > protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan > to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit > special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that > resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had > no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or > other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of > a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This is not a protocol. However, its recommendations are indeed widely implemented; it documents practice. idnits 2.05.02 tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07.txt: tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07.txt(932): Appendix start: Appendix A. Case Studies. - Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.) Appendix start: Appendix A. Case Studies Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- guidelines.txt: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Informational - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RIID' on line 496 'Where: [RIID] = 4 bit....' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2462 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 4862) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2471 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 3701) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3041 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 4941) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications-03 Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHVHs0bjEdbHIsm0MRAm35AKDLfZX8wGflE/37huXzdgIVksivOgCgqFnV VmBmvMrvsni13ZxgTfV3z4c= =3jjO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 17:13:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJXE-0001Op-GP for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:13:04 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJXE-0007OI-84 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:13:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJVy-000LIP-Bb for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:11:46 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJVf-000LG2-1G for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:11:39 +0000 Received: from dhcp-3764.ietf70.org (dhcp-3764.ietf70.org [130.129.55.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB3MBFi5000429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:11:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: v6ops Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:11:20 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 I'm reading draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 and I found something that I find somewhat troublesome: 2.2.1. IPv4 or IPv6 prioritization The default policy table gives IPv6 addresses higher precedence than IPv4 addresses. There seem to be many cases, however, where network administrators want to control the address selection policy of end- hosts the other way around. I have a hard time believing this is true. Why would anyone want to enable IPv6 and then leave it unused? And if it is true, it's highly problematic: if IPv6 capability is available but not used, this means that problems (that are common when deploying new technologies) will remain unseen and therefore unfixed. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 17:24:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJif-0004Ef-Me for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:24:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJie-00006H-Ey for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:24:53 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJgG-000MIP-L3 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:22:24 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJfp-000MGu-7m for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:22:06 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2007 14:21:57 -0800 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB3MLusY004668; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:21:56 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB3MLp7H011025; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:21:56 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:21:47 -0800 Received: from [130.129.68.111] ([10.21.124.88]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:21:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2B5E053D-52DB-4DF0-95A1-E70D86D052A8@cisco.com> Cc: IETF V6OPS WG , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps to informational Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:21:37 -0800 To: v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 22:21:46.0846 (UTC) FILETIME=[E44DCFE0:01C835FA] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=10333; t=1196720516; x=1197584516; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps=20to=20informational |Sender:=20; bh=h2euhLf5U8Vk8YmE1PCfKMOCc+mlXsgUv9gjPLcBGUA=; b=iJLVIi25UVEOi+Huy6468iBlCAbOQX3JTPYWvEUvJV7d8QVbC+aUg11EjybvhpMf0Pc9EQ2S eZqZiQREIAs3zHoVnMljH7K55gT2UK1Od3O3v/ROKIJeeFf/bHcjc7AA; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: f0b5a4216bfa030ed8a6f68d1833f8ae -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Fred baker > Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is > ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes, and yes. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any > concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been > performed? The document process with this and the associated requirements document has been rather complex. RFC 3484 is implemented in a variety of OS's, but it has been too difficult to use operationally for several reasons. This is the reason that the discussion has started. Yes, there has been a great deal of working group discussion and review, most of it face to face or offline. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., > security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, > internationalization or XML? It is operational people who are writing and discussing the document, so I don't believe that further operational review is required. I also believe that it doesn't bring up issues of the other types mentioned here. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or > the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is > uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns > whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has > discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to > advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR > disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please > include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG > discussion and conclusion on this issue. RFC 3484 has been difficult to use, and there is therefore a solution needed. The development of the solution is expected to occur in 6man. A problem statement and a requirements document are appropriate to guide that discussion. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The working group seems to have a consensus around the problem and the requirements. The solution is not agreed to yet. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated > extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict > in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered > into the ID Tracker.) no. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID- > Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). > Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. > Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such > as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, it does. The idnits tool complains about the use of db8:8000, apparently checking for RFC 3849's 2001:DB8. The paragraph in question is: Host-C is located somewhere on the Internet and has IPv6 address 2001:db8:a000::1. When Host-A sends a packet to Host-C, the longest matching algorithm chooses 2001:db8:8000:1::EUI64 for the source address. In this case, the packet goes through ISP1 and may be filtered by ISP1's ingress filter. Even if the packet is not filtered by ISP1, a return packet from Host-C cannot possibly be delivered to Host-A because the return packet is destined for 2001: db8:8000:1::EUI64, which is closed from the Internet. As you can see, the address wrapped around an end of line, and is therefore not a real issue. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that are > not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If > such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their > completion? Are there normative references that are downward > references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward > references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure > for them [RFC3967]. the references are indeed split into normative and informational references. there is no down-rev reference. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the > document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are > reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA > registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new > registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the > registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does > it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. > If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can > appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This document has no actions for IANA, and says as much. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, > BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an > automated checker? there are no such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement > Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" > announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement > contains the following sections: > Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the > abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or > introduction. One physical network can carry multiple logical networks. Moreover, we can use multiple physical networks at the same time in a host. In that environment, end hosts might have multiple IP addresses and be required to use them selectively. Without an appropriate source/ destination address selection mechanism, the host will experience some trouble in communication. RFC 3484 defines both the source and destination address selection algorithms, but the multi-prefix environment considered here needs additional rules beyond those of the default operation. This document describes the possible problems that end hosts could encounter in an environment with multiple logical networks. > Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is > worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular > points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? The problem statement and requirements have been thoroughly discussed and seem to have a reasonably strong consensus. The proposed solution is not yet agreed to. > Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the > protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan > to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit > special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that > resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had > no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or > other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of > a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? idnits 2.05.02 tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02.txt: tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02.txt(327): Found possible IPv6 address 'db8:8000:1::0' in position 4; this doesn't match RFC3849's suggested 2001:DB8::/32 address range or RFC4193's Unique Local Address range FC00::/7. --> db8:8000:1::EUI64, which is closed from the Internet. ^ tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02.txt(680): Appendix start: Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History. Appendix start: Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- guidelines.txt: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- ** There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap has been published as RFC 4864 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3041 (Obsoleted by RFC 4941) Summary: 1 error (**), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHVIFxbjEdbHIsm0MRAhB9AJ4m5ga/UPuL1Gt/Hz8MaPNHfaKZZwCg+Epl sh1Dw7QJgzvfw1iQeW7VyN0= =vE2T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 17:33:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJqj-0007NS-Ms for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:33:13 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJqi-0000zr-Hn for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:33:13 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJpW-000N6j-CA for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:31:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJou-000N30-UO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:31:40 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2007 14:31:20 -0800 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB3MVK6F021896; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:31:20 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB3MVK75021956; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:31:20 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:31:20 -0800 Received: from [130.129.68.111] ([10.21.124.88]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:31:19 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: IETF V6OPS WG , iesg-secretary@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req to informational Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:31:10 -0800 To: v6ops-ads@tools.ietf.org X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 22:31:20.0044 (UTC) FILETIME=[39F4E2C0:01C835FC] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=9479; t=1196721080; x=1197585080; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req=20to=20informational |Sender:=20; bh=hZ2qB9XmHHkZWrtX7hvBUxcWirCOBDEKYwJEvYWtybw=; b=d/Y5vfbSqhIUa7z5FhKfmn1arsykRIo/hoY5D8wfyIc6U4k1VCF5MHiI8jt+B6otSQc8ETe+ dV88Hglp0mPf0kOhWUlY2hqefQGsx2LyXMknLAUutmL+pyd84yEJtl47; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: f884eb1d4ec5a230688d7edc526ea665 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Fred Baker > Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is > ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes, and yes. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any > concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been > performed? The document process with this and the associated requirements document has been rather complex. RFC 3484 is implemented in a variety of OS's, but it has been too difficult to use operationally for several reasons. This is the reason that the discussion has started. Yes, there has been a great deal of working group discussion and review, most of it face to face or offline. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., > security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, > internationalization or XML? It is operational people who are writing and discussing the document, so I don't believe that further operational review is required. I also believe that it doesn't bring up issues of the other types mentioned here. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or > the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is > uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns > whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has > discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to > advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR > disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please > include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG > discussion and conclusion on this issue. RFC 3484 has been difficult to use, and there is therefore a solution needed. The development of the solution is expected to occur in 6man. A problem statement and a requirements document are appropriate to guide that discussion. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The working group seems to have a consensus around the problem statement and the requirements. The solution is not agreed to yet. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated > extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict > in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered > into the ID Tracker.) no. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID- > Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). > Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. > Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such > as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, I have verified this. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that are > not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If > such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their > completion? Are there normative references that are downward > references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward > references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure > for them [RFC3967]. the references are indeed split into normative and informational references. there is no down-rev reference. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the > document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are > reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA > registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new > registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the > registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does > it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. > If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can > appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This document has no actions for IANA, and says as much. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, > BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an > automated checker? there are no such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement > Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" > announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement > contains the following sections: > Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the > abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or > introduction. One physical network can have multiple logical networks. In that case, an end-host has multiple IP addresses. (e.g., in the IPv4-IPv6 dual-stack environment, in a site that uses both ULA [RFC4193] and global scope addresses or in a site connected to multiple upstream IPv6 networks) For such a host, RFC 3484 [RFC3484] defines default address-selection rules for the source and destination addresses. Today, the RFC 3484 mechanism is widely implemented in major OSs. However, we and others have found that in many sites the default address-selection rules are not appropriate for the network structure. PS [I-D.ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps] lists problematic cases that resulted from incorrect address selection. Though RFC 3484 made the address-selection behavior of a host configurable, typical users cannot make use of that because of the complexity of the mechanism and lack of knowledge about their network topologies. Therefore, an address-selection autoconfiguration mechanism is necessary, especially for unmanaged hosts of typical users. This document contains requirements for address-selection mechanisms that enable hosts to perform appropriate address selection automatically. > Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is > worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular > points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? The problem statement and requirements have been thoroughly discussed and seem to have a reasonably strong consensus. The proposed solution is not yet agreed to. > Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the > protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan > to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit > special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that > resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had > no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or > other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of > a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This is not a protocol. It is a requirements statement for an operational policy procedure. RFC 3484 is implemented in several OS's. idnits 2.05.02 tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt: tmp/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04.txt(328): Appendix start: Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History. Appendix start: Appendix A. Appendix. Revision History Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- guidelines.txt: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Informational - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- No issues found here. No nits found. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHVIOubjEdbHIsm0MRAuugAJ9iAkke2FshqAM50ttnrFNx+PczPACg4Opd Cd6ENfxvwiTJAAhTZOT/qXs= =d9R+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 17:42:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJzR-0005wT-H7 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:42:13 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJzQ-0001sZ-QI for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:42:13 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJxF-000NoA-N8 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:39:57 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzJwm-000Njl-3z for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:39:43 +0000 Received: from briand-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.90] helo=BrianD-2.local) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1IzJwl-0004to-3v; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:39:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4754859D.20005@ca.afilias.info> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:39:25 -0800 From: Brian Dickson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt References: <33D2999E-3BA9-4FE6-AD88-BA3A4D881482@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <33D2999E-3BA9-4FE6-AD88-BA3A4D881482@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: briand@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Hi, > > I've updated my modified NAT-PT draft (again). It now includes: > > - changes to NAT-PT in the form of using A records directly rather > than syntetic AAAA records so no DNS issues > - synthetic RFC 1918 source address coupled with the above allows for > applications to see that they're doing IPv4 rather than IPv6 and that > there is NAT involved > - the above allows for non-IPv6 applications to work > - IPv4-to-IPv6-to-IPv4 translation without double NAT > - a mechanism for IPv6-only hosts to receive incoming sessions from > the IPv4-only world > > Please note that this is a discussion document, I'm not suggesting > that everything in it is adopted as-is. There were some ideas I floated in reply to Brian Carpenter's SHANTI proposal, which look like they may better fit in with your work - indeed, they look very similar, with one extra feature that allows for additional scaling of any ALGs if they are needed, on a per-port basis. Here's the highlights, followed by the rest of my ideas... Do IPv4-to-IPv6 protocol translation - but now, the extra "twist" - embed the *port* in the IPv6 destination, *above* the IPv4 address. This lets us set up "generic" ALGs, based on covering aggregates for the "special" address space we use for the place where 6-back-to-4 happens. And, we can then set up ALGs on a per-port basis, which are more-specific addresses. And even more fine-grained port+IPv4 ALGs can be set up, e.g. when there is a need to do 4-6-4 for RFC 1918 space. (rest of quoted stuff details stuff that may or may not be of interest or in-scope for your document) Since the host sees IPv4 "natively", no DNS tricks are needed. There are even a few advanced tricks that can be accomplished, like reverse-port-mapping to request inbound port(s) and possibly inbound port+IPv4 address "reservation". Combined with dynamic DNS, it may be possible to extend the usefulness of a very small number of IPv4 addresses, to support a much larger of "servers" who need reserved ports, although possibly only intermittently. (Think SMTP for hosting, inbound with MX and relay.) The implementation of things like DHCP (for IPv4) use well-know IPv4 "broadcast" address destination 255.255.255.255. But, having an IPv6 host listen on that address, transmogrified by the mapping including port, means a specific IPv6 address can act as a DHCP server (or relay). NAT stuff built to handle this has an added advantage - the IPv4 client-side addresses can overlap, since the presumption is that all the hosts already have IPv6 - and can communicate via IPv6. So there would not be any need for support for "tromboned" traffic between pairs of hosts behind this 4-6-4-plus-NAT. The colliding addresses are disambituated in IPv4 by port (assigned by the NAT), and in the NAT back-end by IPv6 address. There are details to work out, of course. But I think it could be an interesting starting point, which by virtue of presenting an IPv4 interface to the client, avoids most of the NAT-PT issues. Oh, yeah, one other good thing - there is no requirement that the ALGs or NAT-PT exist on the same network, just that they be reachable via IPv6 natively. So, a small network could point their "ALG default" at an upstream, who then would handle all the NAT-PT stuff (presumably as either a value-add, paid, or bundled service) for access to the V4 Internet. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. > >> Title : Modified Network Address Translation - Protocol >> Translation >> Author(s) : I. van Beijnum >> Filename : draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt >> Pages : 16 >> Date : 2007-11-19 > >> A smooth transition from IPv4 to IPv6 requires that either all hosts >> are upgraded to dual stack before the first hosts can become IPv6- >> only, or that there be some mechanism for IPv6-only hosts to talk to >> IPv4-only hosts. Expecting the former within a reasonable timeframe >> isn't realistic, based on current adoption of dual stack combined >> with the latest projections for the IPv4 depletion that point to a >> date early in the next decade. And the IETF has recently deprecated >> the main mechanism that allows the latter: NAT-PT. >> This document proposes modifications to NAT-PT that address the >> reasons why the mechanism was deprecated. This should allow future >> deployment of the modified NAT-PT as an IPv4-to-IPv6 transition >> mechanism, giving operators the option of running their networks >> largely IPv6-only. > >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt >> > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 18:35:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKpF-0000Kr-5I for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:35:45 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKpD-0007Un-Kc for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:35:45 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzKmm-0002Gr-0h for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:33:12 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO, RDNS_NONE,USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [24.40.8.145] (helo=pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzKmC-0002FC-Vj for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:32:54 +0000 Received: from ([10.52.116.31]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-BXT38.10748262; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:32:10 -0500 Received: from PACDCEXCMB05.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.116]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:32:09 -0500 Received: from 130.129.21.234 ([130.129.21.234]) by PACDCEXCMB05.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.116]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:32:10 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:32:08 -0800 Subject: Re: 2nd DHCPv6 bake-off announcement From: Alain Durand To: , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: 2nd DHCPv6 bake-off announcement Thread-Index: Acgq2gqmSWW8tpbNEdyVvgAX8t+c7gLKq2oY In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 23:32:09.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[B968C780:01C83604] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 I'd like to confirm that the 2nd DHCPv6 bake-off will take place this week, starting Friday 2pm, until Sunday 3pm I have booked a conference room at the Westin Bay Shore in Vancouver, the hotel hosting the IETF meeting this week. Please contact me directly if you want to participate. - Alain. On 11/19/07 1:28 PM, "Alain Durand" wrote: > I would like to announce the 2nd DHCPv6 bake off to be organized the week-end > after the IETF in Vancouver. > > The 1st DHCPv6 bake-off was held earlier this year at RIPE-NCC in Amsterdam > and was a great success. See: > http://www.isoc.org/tools/blogs/ietfjournal/?p=135 > > This new bake-off will be conducted in the same spirit, ie focusing on > interoperability and operational practice. I've developed in partnership with > ISC a preliminary test plan for this bake-off that is available upon request. > > Please contact me directly asap if you plan to attend or have any questions. > > - Alain. > > > > > > Organization information: > ------------------------- > > Dates: Friday December 7th 12pm to Sunday December 9th 3pm > > Location: TBD, in Vancouver, BC, Canada > > Open to: any participant coming with an original implementation of a DHCPv6 > client, relay or server > > Disclosure mode: this is a typical non disclosure event, ie you'll have full > access to your test results, and we will only publish a short summary of the > even as we did for the 1st bake-off in the above URL > > Contact & registration: Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com > > What to bring: A platform to run your code (laptop, small router,...) > > Cost: there might be nominal fees to cover some of the local logistic (renting > the room, etc..). Last time, I was able to bring those fees to $0. > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 21:08:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzNDX-00025N-Qw for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:08:59 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzNDX-0006Ro-IT for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:08:59 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzN97-000FOR-Fp for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:04:25 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.14.204.239] (helo=qb-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzN8r-000FNB-H5 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:04:14 +0000 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f11so3401504qba for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:04:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DVNjtCU1Jk7dPtFzTfB9PNbuUgGqCLWHAL7GO999gV8=; b=lxCtvmVth/HAJNodaTaxcTCo1dTG8tALiolIUB2QzNv29ONXcg0lmbf/5B9Sx1RMIR7eXkK5RNSlrVoJlx8saofv6MmFhX0f9ZKysNWS7kd+NZufIQew3v6NUVoEnIAY6OuJdgdZrsIcVziytBA50cyN+Ggac8vpt+cvUjeUX7E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xCmd8q5SyQc1ZvHys5lqlNq7FW8pTnzqwHfKuKJxWNZQXHegExYV5sSIDM7nm6AGUbzIinvkImIF0M3LnunSU3OkF+Rxomyf7QbNfIjoAk8hFopjE98wGRw2jDe6nN7DPPU5BMQjoSNsEenRVjJsbrdCHrbUQCFrQQADLUylZj8= Received: by 10.114.153.18 with SMTP id a18mr87335wae.1196733846416; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:04:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.130.54? ( [203.98.10.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m6sm1183068wag.2007.12.03.18.04.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:04:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:18:57 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 > The document is short enough that I think the best think for people to > do is just read it and then comment here on the list. I think it's significantly improved from the -02 version and should be published. It's important to get this analsysis out into the wider community. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 22:21:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzOLU-0003dl-5t for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:21:16 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzOLS-0004cz-QK for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:21:16 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzOIw-000L82-RX for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:18:38 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzOIm-000L6A-Ae for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:18:33 +0000 Received: from briand-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.90] helo=dhcp-14d9.ietf70.org) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1IzOIk-0005x4-JH; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:18:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4754C700.30402@ca.afilias.info> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:18:24 -0800 From: Brian Dickson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Thomas Narten , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: briand@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> The document is short enough that I think the best think for people to >> do is just read it and then comment here on the list. > > I think it's significantly improved from the -02 version > and should be published. It's important to get this analsysis > out into the wider community. > > Brian +1 (including the "Brian" :-)) From EstebanMoreno@mmsllp.com Tue Dec 04 14:15:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdEn-0002mx-4a for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:15:21 -0500 Received: from [189.24.91.235] (helo=18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdEf-0006J3-2m for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:15:21 -0500 Received: from comp1 ([104.188.10.55]:12237 "EHLO comp1" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br with ESMTP id S22DCZUMLREROETQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:15:44 -0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:15:14 -0200 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "Esteban Moreno" Subject: re: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 We are always happy to see you at Canadian Health&Care Mall. http: From Janus430@montore.ru Tue Dec 04 14:19:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdIg-0007DK-Mn for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:19:22 -0500 Received: from [189.24.91.235] (helo=18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdIf-0006mk-J7 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:19:22 -0500 Received: from comp1 ([196.135.67.189] helo=comp1) by 18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1QaoGQ-000FMP-VP for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:19:56 -0200 Message-ID: <39FFDCFD.81155C1E@montore.ru> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:19:22 -0200 From: "Janus Sanjeevan" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: RE: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Canadian Health&Care Mall guarantees you 100% privacy. We ship you the products in disguised boxes with plain wrappers. http://amopriatem.info/ From marlinda.Musgrove@montore.ru Tue Dec 04 14:22:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdLv-0001Zy-Tk for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:22:44 -0500 Received: from [189.24.91.235] (helo=18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdLv-0007BP-7k for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:22:43 -0500 Received: from comp1 ([109.185.139.15] helo=comp1) by 18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1fuLTu-000GVB-Di for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:23:14 -0200 Message-ID: <2973BF6B.6F1AEB76@montore.ru> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:22:44 -0200 From: "marlinda Musgrove" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: RE: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Canadian Health&Care Mall guarantees you 100% privacy. We ship you the products in disguised boxes with plain wrappers. http://amopriatem.info/ From Millardpelre@montore.ru Tue Dec 04 14:23:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdMf-0001sz-8f for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:23:29 -0500 Received: from [189.24.91.235] (helo=18924055031.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdMe-0007Fv-GG for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:23:29 -0500 Received: from comp1 by montore.ru with ASMTP id 92A92DD3 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:23:45 -0200 Received: from comp1 ([146.127.133.10]) by montore.ru with ESMTP id B897CCAB4DB3 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:23:45 -0200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:23:29 -0200 From: "llewellyn Millard" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: RE: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Canadian Health&Care Mall guarantees you 100% privacy. We ship you the products in disguised boxes with plain wrappers. http://amopriatem.info/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 14:49:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izdlf-0004Ab-53 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:49:19 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izdle-0005vQ-O0 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:49:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izdh4-0005NN-PC for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:44:34 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.15.163.216] (helo=tndh.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izdgt-0005Kv-GH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:44:28 +0000 Received: from eagle (192.168.123.10:1364) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:44:20 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Tony Hain" To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" , "'Thomas Narten'" Cc: "'IPv6 Operations'" References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> Subject: RE: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:44:19 -0800 Message-ID: <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acg2GshxApEGEE1qSw2sa4fqVXQzQwAj8SHA Content-Language: en-us Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 There is no discussion about negating the overly conservative mindset of = the RIR membership, and that the reason they didn't take this up until = 2005 was that they were not really serious about IPv6 before that. That = overly conservative mindset still exists, with no consideration about = the long term impact of their oppressive behavior.=20 There is no discussion of the point raised in the intro about the = scaling impact on the public routing system. I would suggest after the = last paragraph of section 2: Being overly conservative on end site assignment size also has a direct = impact on the potential size of the global routing system. When longer = prefixes are assigned to end sites, the public routing table has the = potential to grow 2^n times larger than with shorter prefixes. Many of = the same people that complain about assigning the same size prefix to = large enterprises and home users also complain about the scale of the = public routing system, without acknowledging that the longer prefixes = make that problem worse. The summary comment about bridging not being desirable appears to assume = that it is even technically possible because all the subnets will use = Ethernet framing. There should be some discussion about the potential = for new framing formats to be developed that will not be technically = compatible with existing link technologies. When that happens the = braindead single-subnet model will result in another nat fiasco. The summary comment about 'generally unacceptable' is probably the wrong = language. Maybe reword the comment something like: - assigning a longer prefix to an end site, compared with the existing = prefixes the end site already has assigned to it, is likely to increase = operational costs and complexity for the end site, with no discernable = cost savings to anyone.=20 Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:19 PM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: IPv6 Operations > Subject: Re: new version of = draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt >=20 >=20 > > The document is short enough that I think the best think for people > to > > do is just read it and then comment here on the list. >=20 > I think it's significantly improved from the -02 version > and should be published. It's important to get this analsysis > out into the wider community. >=20 > Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 15:13:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ize8t-0002i5-CA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:13:19 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ize8t-0007Bv-3V for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:13:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ize7P-0007sh-Rd for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:11:47 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ize74-0007rF-Qq for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:11:42 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::48:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:48:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB4KBFp8024964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:11:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Thomas Narten In-Reply-To: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:11:21 -0800 References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 "The above-mentioned RFC3177 goals can easily be met by giving home users a /56 assignment by default." I disagree. A /56 is still wasteful if we assume that home users are only going to need a very small number of subnets. Additionally, many people will be tempted to start using a /56 for purposes that really need more subnets than about 250. Renumbering when a network needs its 257th subnet will be painful. It would be much better to a have a clear distinction between very small networks and all other networks, and not have a size that is still to large for most while at the same time being too small for some, even if they don't realize it at first. So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who feels /60 isn't enough. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 15:20:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzeGD-0002mt-72 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:20:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzeGC-0007o8-Qk for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:20:53 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzeFJ-0008eF-1C for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:19:57 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzeF7-0008dK-Ry for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:19:51 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::48:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:48:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB4KJVV0025112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:19:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian Dickson In-Reply-To: <4754859D.20005@ca.afilias.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:19:37 -0800 References: <33D2999E-3BA9-4FE6-AD88-BA3A4D881482@muada.com> <4754859D.20005@ca.afilias.info> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 On 3 dec 2007, at 14:39, Brian Dickson wrote: > Do IPv4-to-IPv6 protocol translation - but now, the extra "twist" - > embed the *port* in the IPv6 destination, *above* the IPv4 address. > This lets us set up "generic" ALGs, based on covering aggregates for > the "special" address space we use for the place where 6-back-to-4 > happens. > And, we can then set up ALGs on a per-port basis, which are more- > specific addresses. When I read this it wasn't obvious to me what you meant, but being able to talk in person can sometimes be helpful. :-) The idea is to have a format like ::port:v4:addr which makes it possible to route all traffic for a given destination port to a separate translator that is better prepared to translate the protocol in question. This is a good trick! > There are even a few advanced tricks that can be accomplished, like > reverse-port-mapping to request inbound port(s) and possibly inbound > port+IPv4 address "reservation". > Combined with dynamic DNS, it may be possible to extend the > usefulness of a very small number of IPv4 addresses, to support a > much larger of "servers" who need reserved ports, although possibly > only intermittently. (Think SMTP for hosting, inbound with MX and > relay.) Right, there are services that need a more or less permanent inbound capability and others that only need this at certain times. I'd say that SMTP is an example of the former, though. The latter would be things like peer-to-peer applications that only run once in a while, such as videoconferencing. > The implementation of things like DHCP (for IPv4) use well-know IPv4 > "broadcast" address destination 255.255.255.255. But, having an IPv6 > host listen on that address, transmogrified by the mapping including > port, means a specific IPv6 address can act as a DHCP server (or > relay). Is this useful? > Oh, yeah, one other good thing - there is no requirement that the > ALGs or NAT-PT exist on the same network, just that they be > reachable via IPv6 natively. So, a small network could point their > "ALG default" at an upstream, who then would handle all the NAT-PT > stuff (presumably as either a value-add, paid, or bundled service) > for access to the V4 Internet. Indeed. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 15:38:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzeX3-00011T-Sm for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:38:17 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzeX3-0000WW-Fw for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:38:17 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzeVm-000AII-UA for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:36:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzeVP-000AGD-BQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:36:53 +0000 Received: from dhcp-3764.ietf70.org (dhcp-3764.ietf70.org [130.129.55.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB4Ka0Oq025399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:36:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: v6ops Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:36:06 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Looking at draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00: "The operational goals of security capabilities in Internet gateways are described with more detail in "Local Network Protection for IPv6" [IPv6-NAP], but they can be summarized as follows. o Check all traffic to and from the public Internet for basic sanity, e.g. anti-spoofing and "martian" filters. o Allow tracking of application usage by source and destination transport addresses. o Provide a barrier against untrusted external influences on the interior network by requiring filter state to be activated by traffic originating at interior network nodes. o Allow manually configured exceptions to the stateful filtering rules according to network administration policy." The first bullet is fairly obvious (although personally I've never felt the need to filter packets that are going to fail just fine on their own) but I'm not quite sure what the other bullets get at... Some things that may deserve attention in the draft: What about packets with unknown next headers? On the one end you don't want bad guys to work around filters by inserting a header or two between the IPv4 and TCP or UDP headers, but on the other hand you don't want to make innovation impossible by filtering out anything that didn't exist when the CPE was shipped. An extra complication is that although there is a fairly standard extension header format, not all headers conform to this format, so it may or may not be possible to look beyond an unknown header in a packet. PMTUD is mentioned but no language about allowing the required packet too big messages through. This is extremely important, PMTUD black holes are a big problem, and some of the IPv4 worarounds aren't available in IPv6. It may even be useful to allow the CPE to advertise a reduced MTU on the LAN side to work around upstream PMTUD breakage, although it wouldn't be a good idea to enable this by default, IMO. Some other stuff that routinely cause trouble with at least some firewalls: diffserv bits in the IP header, ECN, TCP options in general and window scale in particular. Do we need to say anything about these? (Some firewalls ignore the window scale option but then block "out of window" segments.) From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 17:15:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izg2z-00041x-Dc for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:15:21 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izg2x-00009u-Tk for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:15:21 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izfy9-000JeM-CT for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:10:21 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [32.97.182.143] (helo=e3.ny.us.ibm.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izfxx-000Jb7-Ho for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:10:15 +0000 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB4MA1u8000546 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:10:01 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id lB4MA16I136026 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:10:01 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB4MA16e015238 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:10:01 -0500 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (wecm-9-67-194-205.wecm.ibm.com [9.67.194.205]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB4MA0V2015061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:10:01 -0500 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id lB4M9xkZ026986; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:09:59 -0500 Message-Id: <200712042209.lB4M9xkZ026986@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt In-reply-to: References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Comments: In-reply-to Iljitsch van Beijnum message dated "Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:11:21 -0800." Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:09:59 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Hi Iljitsch. > "The above-mentioned RFC3177 goals can easily be met by giving home > users a /56 assignment by default." > I disagree. A /56 is still wasteful if we assume that home users are > only going to need a very small number of subnets. To be clear, the wastefulness of a /56 was not a concern of 3177. Remember, it recommended a /48. So moving to /56 would be less wasteful and I think the statement is correct. :-) I understand your point that a /60 would also be OK for home end sites. Couple of points. The sentence in the document isn't technically recommending a /56. It is simply saying it would meet the requirements. So, it could be changed to something like "by giving home users a /56 or /60 assignment by default". I think I would be OK with that, but I suspect others would be less willing to accept that. I too think one could argue that a /60 for typical home sites is sufficient _today_. But I also don't know that we really need to go this far. Going from /48 to /56 is the big savings. > Additionally, many people will be tempted to start using a /56 for > purposes that really need more subnets than about 250. > Renumbering when a network needs its 257th subnet will be > painful. It would be much better to a have a clear distinction > between very small networks and all other networks, and not have a > size that is still to large for most while at the same time being > too small for some, even if they don't realize it at first. > So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who feels /60 > isn't enough. Note: it is the RIRs/ISPs who make this decision, not the IETF. So I don't think it is too useful to get too wrapped up over the exact value specified in _this_ document. Thomas From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 17:20:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izg89-0005PV-3C for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:20:41 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izg88-0000dB-NG for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:20:41 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izg7J-000KXm-MR for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:19:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izg79-000KWg-1S for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:19:44 +0000 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D011A37696 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:19:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6AFE328082 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:19:37 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807130-a4e44bb000004fb9-31-4755d2799bbe Received: from [17.206.23.192] (il0602a-dhcp64.apple.com [17.206.23.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 4D3D728085 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:19:37 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6D2C7AD9-0380-44D1-9E66-4B89F08026E0@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:19:32 -0800 To: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who feels / > 60 isn't enough. FWIW, my ISP allocated me a /60 when I signed up for their IPv6 tunnel service (which I used to make sure the IPv6 "manual tunnel" feature in the AirPort Extreme base station worked properly). I'm using exactly two of the sixteen subnets this provides me. I don't expect to exhaust my /60 for as long as I live at my current address. That said... I would *STRONGLY* advise against condoning the allocation of only one /64 per residential ISP customer site. Why? Let me explain why I'm using two subnets and not one, and you can tell me what I should do if my ISP wants to charge me a flat fee per /64 allocation. I have one subnet that has all my private services and home appliance devices. I have another subnet on an open 802.11 access point for my friends and houseguests with 802.11-enabled personal devices can get to the Internet at my house without me having to give them a WPA password that allows non-firewalled access to my whole private network. My private network has an RFC 1918 private address realm for IPv4, and its access to the Internet is through a NAT device. My guest network is in a different RFC 1918 private address realm, and its access to the Internet is through a differnent NAT device. Both of them are IPv6-enabled, and each has a different /64 subnet carved from the /60 allocated to me by my ISP. If my ISP wants to charge me a fee for each /64 it allocates for me, and I can avoid that charge by using IPv6 NAT, then you get three guesses what I'm going to do. I expect you'll guess correctly the very first time. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From MK461@www.rachael.com Tue Dec 04 17:25:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzgCe-0005Re-7V for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:25:20 -0500 Received: from [77.81.184.205] (helo=[77.81.184.205]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzgCd-0004eu-Kf for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:25:20 -0500 Received: from home-7ba809feea by www.rachael.com with ASMTP id C7294EEB for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:24:42 -0800 Received: from home-7ba809feea ([132.110.127.25]) by www.rachael.com with ESMTP id 36438E84FBC4 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:24:42 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:24:19 -0800 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "MK Deckenbach" Subject: slogwood Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 she said the sex was good but did she climax? make it happen everytime without fail. http://www.onemictv.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 19:03:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhjN-00083Q-6p for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:03:13 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhjM-000185-Fm for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:03:13 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzhdV-00049p-2o for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:57:09 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izhck-00045p-5N for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:56:44 +0000 Received: from relay8.apple.com (relay8.apple.com [17.128.113.38]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245561A39852 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay8.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay8.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 139AB400FA for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:56:21 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807126-994e5bb0000055a4-40-4755e9249722 Received: from [17.206.23.192] (il0602a-dhcp64.apple.com [17.206.23.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id E8C0E4000F for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:56:20 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:56:14 -0800 To: v6ops Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > o Check all traffic to and from the public Internet for basic > sanity, e.g. anti-spoofing and "martian" filters. > o Allow tracking of application usage by source and destination > transport addresses. > o Provide a barrier against untrusted external influences on the > interior network by requiring filter state to be activated by > traffic originating at interior network nodes. > o Allow manually configured exceptions to the stateful filtering > rules according to network administration policy." > > The first bullet is fairly obvious (although personally I've never > felt the need to filter packets that are going to fail just fine on > their own) but I'm not quite sure what the other bullets get at... I keep hearing the phrase "attack surfaces" every time I try to run that argument past my security advisors. > Some things that may deserve attention in the draft: > > What about packets with unknown next headers? Indeed. What about them? I would assert that packet filters should assume they are last headers and treat them like unknown transport layer headers. Is there another option available? > On the one end you don't want bad guys to work around filters by > inserting a header or two between the IPv4 and TCP or UDP headers, > but on the other hand you don't want to make innovation impossible > by filtering out anything that didn't exist when the CPE was shipped. You may not want to interfere with innovation, but I'm not sure the purpose of simple CPE security as we have currently envisioned it is achievable without interfering with such innovation. The people who want to be "protected" by these packet filters are mainly concerned with keeping the innovations of malware developers from interfering with their private network resources. In other words, the problem as some see it is that we would all feel safer if there were better ways to filter out those things that don't currently exist at the time the CPE firmware is mastered. I wish we had more guidance from the IAB about such matters... I know what my manager is telling me: don't let anything through unless we know what it is. > An extra complication is that although there is a fairly standard > extension header format, not all headers conform to this format, so > it may or may not be possible to look beyond an unknown header in a > packet. Perhaps, the 6MAN working group could be persuaded to declare a particular format for future extension headers that are expected to have a cleartext "next header" field that packet filters can process? I'm not sure how much of a problem this is really going to cause, though... (In fact, it occurs to me that we have routing headers and hop-by-hop headers, but wouldn't it make sense to have an extension header format defined specifically for policy-enforcement points like firewall devices? Just riffing off the top of my head there...) > PMTUD is mentioned but no language about allowing the required > packet too big messages through. This is extremely important, PMTUD > black holes are a big problem, and some of the IPv4 worarounds > aren't available in IPv6. It may even be useful to allow the CPE to > advertise a reduced MTU on the LAN side to work around upstream > PMTUD breakage, although it wouldn't be a good idea to enable this > by default, IMO. I thought I included that. Do you have suggested language for improving R12, R13, R23 and R24? Perhaps, you are concerned about SCTP, DCCP and future transport layer protocols? > Some other stuff that routinely cause trouble with at least some > firewalls: diffserv bits in the IP header, ECN, TCP options in > general and window scale in particular. Do we need to say anything > about these? (Some firewalls ignore the window scale option but > then block "out of window" segments.) Hmm. Sounds strangely familiar. We might be getting ahead of the BEHAVE group on the subject of TCP stateful packet filtering behavior, but that's probably not a bad thing. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 19:07:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izhnd-0003LI-7r for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:07:37 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izhnc-0001Ru-U0 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:07:37 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izhkf-0004rq-GW for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:04:33 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [192.16.178.5] (helo=mail.nttv6.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izhju-0004oM-K1 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:04:07 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lB503VBc028961; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:03:35 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from arifumi@nttv6.net) Message-ID: <4755EAD5.4040405@nttv6.net> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:03:33 +0900 From: Arifumi Matsumoto User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: v6ops Operations Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.nttv6.net [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:03:35 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Hi, thank you for your comment. Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > I'm reading draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 and I found something > that I find somewhat troublesome: > > 2.2.1. IPv4 or IPv6 prioritization The default policy table gives IPv6 > addresses higher precedence than IPv4 addresses. There seem to be many > cases, however, where network administrators want to control the address > selection policy of end- hosts the other way around. > > I have a hard time believing this is true. Why would anyone want to > enable IPv6 and then leave it unused? And if it is true, it's highly > problematic: if IPv6 capability is available but not used, this means > that problems (that are common when deploying new technologies) will > remain unseen and therefore unfixed. We've found some operational reasons for IPv6-IPv4 priority control. - As mentioned some time before at this ML, smooth and conservative IPv4 to IPv6 transition might be one reason. The transition looks like: IPv4 only network, -> IPv4 and IPv6 network with IPv4 prioritized. -> IPv4 and IPv6 network with IPv6 prioritized. -> IPv6 only network - Another case might be like you have temporariliy extremely poor IPv6 access line and want to use that only when connecting to IPv6-only host. However, I agree that a new technology, such as IPv6, should be generally prioritized than the old one. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 19:26:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izi63-0000Bx-2S for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:26:39 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izi62-0002U2-Hg for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:26:39 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izi0q-0006r7-Va for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:21:16 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izhzy-0006k7-VC for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:20:56 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB50KIe7021258; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:20:18 -0600 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:20:18 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:18:02 -0500 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECA@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Thread-Index: Acg20+0bmP+q6nT/RcexQcj5pBs+IAAAF9sq References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> From: "Suresh Krishnan" To: "james woodyatt" , "v6ops Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 00:20:18.0305 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D7A1710:01C836D4] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Hi James, > Perhaps, the 6MAN working group could be persuaded to declare a =20 > particular format for future extension headers that are expected to =20 > have a cleartext "next header" field that packet filters can =20 > process? I'm not sure how much of a problem this is really going to =20 > cause, though... I wrote a draft about this in the old ipv6 wg. Everyone said it was a = good idea but it was too late. Take a look at it and let me know if this = helps in any way http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-00 Thanks Suresh From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 19:55:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IziYA-0004vl-Et for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:55:42 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IziYA-00045c-3w for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:55:42 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IziVP-000ABh-DK for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:52:51 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IziVD-000AAY-Vw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:52:45 +0000 Received: from briand-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.90] helo=BrianD-2.local) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1IziVA-00009Z-3B; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:52:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4755F651.6040807@ca.afilias.info> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:52:33 -0800 From: Brian Dickson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alh-ietf@tndh.net CC: 'Brian E Carpenter' , 'Thomas Narten' , 'IPv6 Operations' Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> In-Reply-To: <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: briand@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Tony Hain wrote: > There is no discussion of the point raised in the intro about the scaling impact on the public routing system. I would suggest after the last paragraph of section 2: > Being overly conservative on end site assignment size also has a direct impact on the potential size of the global routing system. When longer prefixes are assigned to end sites, the public routing table has the potential to grow 2^n times larger than with shorter prefixes. Many of the same people that complain about assigning the same size prefix to large enterprises and home users also complain about the scale of the public routing system, without acknowledging that the longer prefixes make that problem worse. > > It's a huge leap from "potential size" to "make that problem worse". In a nutshell, the router-slot usage problem is a demand-side problem - there is a real need for reliable internet presence (not just client-side connectivity). And, using assignment policy to address this is a supply-side solution. Those don't generally work for demand-side problems (q.v. the war on drugs). The real place this needs to be addressed is in the solution space to multi-homing. Currently the only viable answer for multihoming is PI space (in both v4 and v6). Until we come up with a better solution, the scaling problem fundamentally cannot be prevented. As such, I have to disagree with Tony on this one; the recommendation fits well with the long-term goal of conserving limited (albeit enormous) resources. Brian Dickson From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 20:16:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izisa-0000Iz-RU for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:16:48 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzisZ-0005Cu-EC for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:16:48 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izipi-000CCS-Dr for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:13:50 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.146.181] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzipX-000CBn-6j for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:13:44 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so6642422wah for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:13:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rmbcghn07yeQwGtRM9EyrgKOgxGyVwYAKbgLuzqF80U=; b=DmZIoDGszT9vn172nJs1vjmv4PIBpPAxJjtN0wsPSu0X8pJjyPiL1lhZArfN8+rVciquYVjbF0VNp/etznUIkYFk2CerVMLniDxrtGr6F+gLAuf4T01adtYwZeXEZ7eYj59jvTryvP1jB91FXLgZLXEjxrfTcZtOHIITVI6gSGM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=tyc/k7zjKFdSSPkmuG9juhNS/qoMJQrZEgat75E8RP74LicyNxpAQw1oXDyHVrEVqxScmqdkg4PIq1DRcvgMZIeUu2Y6tT63nX2jO2e0ZnKl6PONv+SQDs+v1fH63d1xZmgXaQcP9JnW5ZPQPL6Z31d07zp/2AejfMLpi/c00PQ= Received: by 10.114.106.1 with SMTP id e1mr45037wac.1196817219069; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:13:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.130.54? ( [203.98.10.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k9sm113777wah.2007.12.04.17.13.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:13:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:13:31 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'IPv6 Operations' Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> In-Reply-To: <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f On 2007-12-05 08:44, Tony Hain wrote: > There is no discussion about negating the overly conservative mindset of the RIR membership, and that the reason they didn't take this up until 2005 was that they were not really serious about IPv6 before that. That overly conservative mindset still exists, with no consideration about the long term impact of their oppressive behavior. I think time will be the great healer on that point; it really does no long term harm if allocations are on the small side for the first few years. As long as policies are mutable, that is. On 2007-12-05 09:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: ... > So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who feels /60 > isn't enough. Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with entertainment, building services, and home office all running on various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 21:10:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzjiK-0006xl-R4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:10:16 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzjiK-0007w7-DJ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:10:16 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzjdF-000HLc-S2 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:05:01 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izjd4-000HJs-Vg for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:04:56 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A6A1A3CB38 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:04:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 5BB302804D for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:04:45 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807134-a5f22bb000007227-72-4756073dcb52 Received: from [17.206.23.192] (il0602a-dhcp64.apple.com [17.206.23.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 3A5A428089 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:04:45 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:04:39 -0800 To: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 On Dec 4, 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-12-05 09:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > ... >> So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who =20 >> feels /60 isn't enough. > > Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with > entertainment, building services, and home office all running on > various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough. I'm pretty sure /60 isn't big enough over the foreseeable future. =20 I'm *also* not sure that /56 is big enough. I'm concerned about a =20 problem I can see arising in a world of zero-configuration IPv6 =20 router/firewalls that implement "CPE simple security" by default, and =20= they're scattered around the interior of residential networks, i.e. =20 all over inside people's homes=97 possibly because they are integrated =20= into consumer devices that require expert users to turn them off. I'm foreseeing these devices negotiating with one another what =20 subnets to advertise in much the same way that Appletalk routers once =20= did=97 like back in the old hellish days when people could just buy =20 routers, plug them together and they'd just work without people =20 having to configure them with all kinds of arcane code numbers. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 22:08:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izkd2-0000Gw-05 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:08:52 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izkd1-0002X6-KO for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:08:51 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzkYu-000MeS-Ij for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:04:36 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [204.9.54.5] (helo=tokyo01.jp.mail.your.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzkYj-000McA-Q3 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:04:31 +0000 Received: from mail.your.org (server3-a.your.org [64.202.112.67]) by tokyo01.jp.mail.your.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DEB2AD5589 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pool011.dhcp.your.org (pool011.dhcp.your.org [69.31.99.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.your.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCF0A0A44E for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com> From: Kevin Day To: v6ops Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:04:01 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 (resending because I don't think this made it through last time, please ignore any duplicates) While hopefully this was an isolated incident, I thought I'd share a really strange problem that came up this week. We had an ISP contact us saying we were announcing 32.1.73.0/24 (part of AT&T's space) which was breaking something for them. In fact, random subnets in 32.1.0.0/16 were showing up in their routing table going to all sorts of ASNs, which was confusing to them. I checked our config, and could find no reason we would be announcing that /24 anywhere. It wasn't in our table, our prefix filters wouldn't have allowed it anyway, nor would our upstreams' filters. They flapped their BGP sessions, reloaded their router, and kept seeing it come back. Finally I did a little mental math on that address. Our v6 /32 is 2001:4978::. 0x20 = 32. 0x01 = 1. 0x49 = 73. Somehow, a router translated our v6 address into a v4 address, and passed it through. After a lot of head scratching at various NOCs, we identified a router between the ISP that contacted us and our network that had converted v6 addresses in its table into v4 addresses, preserved their AS path and other attributes, then readvertised them to customers. The breakage was pretty limited, and went away after a reload. But, it makes me a bit curious as to how often things like this will reoccur when routers/hosts/software that have had zero v6 testing start getting exposed to v6 addresses. I'm sure it's unlikely that most brokenness will result in an application still working, yet converting a v6 address into some kind of v4 address. Has anyone else seen any breakage involving 32.1.0.0/16 (2001::) or 32.2.0.0/16 (2002::)? Does anyone know if McLeod suffered any problems from 3ffe:: breaking 63.254.0.0/16 ? -- Kevin From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 23:49:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzmCH-0005iu-AE for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:49:21 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzmCF-0006ZB-EQ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:49:21 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izm8H-0004sa-47 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:45:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izm7l-0004pG-Pi for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:44:57 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2007 20:44:42 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB54ifKn017322; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:44:41 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB54ia1f009411; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 04:44:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:44:35 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C836F9.891305D1" Subject: RA-guard ... useful or not (draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard ) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:45:01 -0500 Message-ID: <3D1C81E7AA3CD64FA20B04D269FEF7F404686C48@xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RA-guard ... useful or not (draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard ) Thread-Index: Acg2+ZhgL7Q3Ac/yQUS3C/NWIZq4cw== From: "Chip Popoviciu (cpopovic)" To: Cc: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" , "Eric Levy- Abegnoli (elevyabe)" , "Mohacsi Janos" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 04:44:35.0934 (UTC) FILETIME=[895C3FE0:01C836F9] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5414; t=1196829881; x=1197693881; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=cpopovic@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Chip=20Popoviciu=20(cpopovic)=22=20 |Subject:=20RA-guard=20...=20useful=20or=20not=20=20(draft-vandevelde-v6o ps-ra-guard=20) |Sender:=20; bh=bcIFnXAQIXVQU+nOSES57c8GwgCMO7iHVNsGoFVVwbc=; b=VOYYaajfTv91kMe+NmeYMBHLkHTd6jt10lKSXFYvlMCFw3bM99J2y+dDBsvp2bhO/nNoNOXJ drmDbC7ZeKdFdDd7Sn+N7pSxRrh2VFtFdtl5BkKRpNKru3ImP0aa+EOQ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=cpopovic@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b22590c27682ace61775ee7b453b40d3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836F9.891305D1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, =20 I would like to follow up on the discussion in the WG regarding solutions to the rogue RAs problem. As one of the co-authors of the RA-guard drafts I obviously see value in this work so I wanted to bring some of the pro arguments up for discussion. In return, I am looking for the counter arguments which could help reach a conclusion on the usefulness of this work. =20 Overview: We see the RA-guard document as providing a framework for several solutions to the rogue-RA problem. These solutions can span the spectrum from basic (where the port of the L2 device is statically instructed to forward or not to forward RAs received from the connected device) to advanced (where a criteria is used by the L2 device to dynamically validate or invalidate a received RA, this criteria can even be based on SEND mechanisms). In its current format, the RA-guard document is a generalized perspective which could provide explicit examples (the authors have several) of implementations that could be built within its framework.=20 =20 RA-guard as a deployment complement to SEND: RA-guard does not intend to provide a substitute for SEND based solutions. It actually intends to provides solutions in those environments where SEND might not be suitable or immediately available. I think it might be fair to expect that there will be some time before SEND is ubiquitous in IPv6 networks and that its large scale deployment still requires a few things to be sorted out. It is also reasonable to expect that some devices might not consider implementing SEND at all. And even when they do, there are some deployment challenges ahead. Many dealing with provisioning hosts with trust anchor certificates. The RA-guard "SEND-validating" RA on behalf of hosts would potentially simplify some of these challenges. =20 RA-guard intends to provide simple solutions to the rogue-RA problem in such contexts and while in some cases it will do that through a simple solution in others, it leverages SEND between capable devices (L2 and routers) to provide protection to devices that do not consistently use SEND.=20 Looking forward to hear everyone's feedback and thoughts on this perspective and these points. =20 Thank you! Chip ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836F9.891305D1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
 
I would like to = follow up on=20 the discussion in the WG regarding solutions to the rogue RAs problem. = As one of=20 the co-authors of the RA-guard drafts I obviously see value in this work = so I=20 wanted to bring some of the pro arguments up for discussion. In return, = I am=20 looking for the counter arguments which could help reach a conclusion on = the=20 usefulness of this work.
 
Overview:
We = see the=20 RA-guard document as providing a framework for several solutions to the = rogue-RA=20 problem. These solutions can span the spectrum from basic (where the = port of the=20 L2 device is statically instructed to forward or not to forward RAs = received=20 from the connected device) to advanced (where a criteria is used by the = L2=20 device to dynamically validate or invalidate a received RA, this = criteria can=20 even be based on SEND mechanisms). In its current format, the RA-guard = document=20 is a generalized perspective which could provide explicit examples (the = authors=20 have several) of implementations that could be built within its = framework.=20
 
RA-guard as a deployment complement to=20 SEND:
RA-guard does not intend to provide a substitute for = SEND=20 based solutions. It actually intends to provides solutions in those = environments=20 where SEND might not be suitable or immediately available. I think it = might be=20 fair to expect that there will be some time before SEND is ubiquitous in = IPv6=20 networks and that its large scale deployment still requires a few things = to be=20 sorted out. It is also reasonable to expect that some devices might not = consider=20 implementing SEND at all. And even when they do, there are some = deployment=20 challenges ahead. Many dealing with provisioning hosts with trust anchor = certificates. The RA-guard "SEND-validating" RA on behalf of hosts would = potentially simplify some of these challenges.
 
RA-guard = intends to=20 provide simple solutions to the rogue-RA problem in such contexts and = while in=20 some cases it will do that through a simple solution in others, it = leverages=20 SEND between capable devices (L2 and routers) to provide protection to = devices=20 that do not consistently use SEND.
Looking forward to hear everyone's = feedback and=20 thoughts on this perspective and these points.
 
Thank=20 you!
Chip
------_=_NextPart_001_01C836F9.891305D1-- From nunush@yahoo.com Wed Dec 05 00:13:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzmZy-0001cy-0B; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:13:50 -0500 Received: from [87.109.249.181] (helo=user-a063b98f280) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzmZb-0002OS-Ez; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:13:49 -0500 Reply-To: From: "m7m7 نانسي" Subject: المنتدى العصري Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:13:29 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 76319d6f172f4cd0a083860f80065cd1 m3loma

معلومة

 

M3loma

هدفنا

توعية المجتمع العربي

 

 

 

 

تفسير الأحلام

 

 

سر الأبراج

 

 

عروض أزياء

 

 

أغاني

 

 

العاب فلاش

 

 

فيديو كليب

 

 

صور و كروت تهنئة

 

 

 الطب الشعبي

 

 

ثقافة جنسية

 

 

سيارات

 

 

رجيم وطبخ

 

 

شبكة اخبارية عربية

 

 

أفلام فيديو

 

 

تنزيل برامج

 

 

شعر وأدب

 

 

طرائف ونكت

 

 

 دليل مواقع

 

www.m3loma.com

معلومة.كوم : نافذة للحياة العصرية

 

 

"منتدى معلومة"

 

ملتقى الشباب والشابات من كافة الوطن العربي

 

منتدى الشباب والمستقبل

 

منتدى الحوار العام

 

منتدى الشعر والروايات

 

منتدى الكمبيوتر والانترنت

 

منتدى عالم حواء

 

منتدى التغذية والرجيم

 

منتدى الديكور والازياء

 

منتدى النكت والطرائف

 

منتدى الالعاب والمسابقات

 

منتدى الصور والغرائب

 

منتدى السياحة والسفر

 

 

منتدى الثقافة الجنسية

 

منتدى الفن والفنانين

 

 

 

بالإضافة إلى العديد من الأقسام المفيدة

 

معلومة.كوم

 

www.m3loma.com

 

 

Email :  info@tasweak.com                 Website : www.tasweak.com

This is not spam massage

Your email opted -in our mailing list

To un subscribes from the mailing list click here لإلغاء اسمك من القائمة البريدية – اضغط

 

 

 

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 01:06:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IznOW-0003h7-H2 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:06:04 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IznOW-00004s-6o for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:06:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IznJw-000AwD-5g for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:01:20 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.185] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IznJ9-000As3-LU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:00:59 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so4160264rvf for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.231.7 with SMTP id d7mr683994wfh.1196834430036; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.246.19 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:00:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <67099930712042200q4fa90810rc14ae628bd3570a0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:00:29 -0800 From: "Erik Kline" To: "Suresh Krishnan" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Cc: "james woodyatt" , "v6ops Operations" In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECA@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECA@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab On 12/4/07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi James, > > > Perhaps, the 6MAN working group could be persuaded to declare a > > particular format for future extension headers that are expected to > > have a cleartext "next header" field that packet filters can > > process? I'm not sure how much of a problem this is really going to > > cause, though... > > I wrote a draft about this in the old ipv6 wg. Everyone said it was a good idea but it was too late. Take a look at it and let me know if this helps in any way > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-00 > > Thanks > Suresh > > This seems like a pretty useful thing to me, actually. Are you considering reproposing it to 6man for discussion? +1 from me for re-starting the discussion. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 01:19:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IznbS-0008Ou-V8 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:19:26 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IznbR-0000Qh-ES for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:19:26 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IznZ3-000C1M-U1 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:16:57 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.185] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IznYb-000BzR-2j for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:16:47 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so4165667rvf for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.245.10 with SMTP id s10mr682270wfh.1196835388462; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.246.19 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:16:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <67099930712042216u7f800e37r7329152b8a707137@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:16:27 -0800 From: "Erik Kline" To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt Cc: "Brian Dickson" , "IPv6 Operations" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <33D2999E-3BA9-4FE6-AD88-BA3A4D881482@muada.com> <4754859D.20005@ca.afilias.info> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 On 12/4/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 3 dec 2007, at 14:39, Brian Dickson wrote: > > > Do IPv4-to-IPv6 protocol translation - but now, the extra "twist" - > > embed the *port* in the IPv6 destination, *above* the IPv4 address. > > This lets us set up "generic" ALGs, based on covering aggregates for > > the "special" address space we use for the place where 6-back-to-4 > > happens. > > And, we can then set up ALGs on a per-port basis, which are more- > > specific addresses. > > When I read this it wasn't obvious to me what you meant, but being > able to talk in person can sometimes be helpful. :-) > > The idea is to have a format like ::port:v4:addr which makes it > possible to route all traffic for a given destination port to a > separate translator that is better prepared to translate the protocol > in question. This is a good trick! Do you want to include the protocol number in there as well? that way you could route SCTP separately. Not a really good argument, but I thought I'd toss the idea out there. > > There are even a few advanced tricks that can be accomplished, like > > reverse-port-mapping to request inbound port(s) and possibly inbound > > port+IPv4 address "reservation". > > Combined with dynamic DNS, it may be possible to extend the > > usefulness of a very small number of IPv4 addresses, to support a > > much larger of "servers" who need reserved ports, although possibly > > only intermittently. (Think SMTP for hosting, inbound with MX and > > relay.) > > Right, there are services that need a more or less permanent inbound > capability and others that only need this at certain times. I'd say > that SMTP is an example of the former, though. The latter would be > things like peer-to-peer applications that only run once in a while, > such as videoconferencing. > > > The implementation of things like DHCP (for IPv4) use well-know IPv4 > > "broadcast" address destination 255.255.255.255. But, having an IPv6 > > host listen on that address, transmogrified by the mapping including > > port, means a specific IPv6 address can act as a DHCP server (or > > relay). > > Is this useful? > > > Oh, yeah, one other good thing - there is no requirement that the > > ALGs or NAT-PT exist on the same network, just that they be > > reachable via IPv6 natively. So, a small network could point their > > "ALG default" at an upstream, who then would handle all the NAT-PT > > stuff (presumably as either a value-add, paid, or bundled service) > > for access to the V4 Internet. > > Indeed. > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 01:50:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izo5E-0005s0-OA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:50:12 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izo5E-0001Gk-At for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:50:12 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izo3N-000ELv-3z for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:48:17 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [198.24.6.9] (helo=imr1.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izo2Y-000EHw-Qy for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:47:58 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB56lNYZ030979; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:47:23 -0600 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:47:23 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:45:19 -0500 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECE@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Thread-Index: Acg3BCcu1WrApUK4Te2ceyYlBkIpxQABj/e8 References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com><51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com><6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECA@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <67099930712042200q4fa90810rc14ae628bd3570a0@mail.gmail.com> From: "Suresh Krishnan" To: "Erik Kline" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "v6ops Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 06:47:23.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0CA2EA0:01C8370A] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Hi Erik, Thanks for your note of confidence. I have not thought about = resubmitting it to 6man yet. But if enough people think it needs to be = done, I would love to revise it. Thanks Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Erik Kline [mailto:ekline@ekline.com] Sent: Wed 5/12/2007 1:00 AM To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: james woodyatt; v6ops Operations Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 =20 On 12/4/07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi James, > > > Perhaps, the 6MAN working group could be persuaded to declare a > > particular format for future extension headers that are expected to > > have a cleartext "next header" field that packet filters can > > process? I'm not sure how much of a problem this is really going to > > cause, though... > > I wrote a draft about this in the old ipv6 wg. Everyone said it was a = good idea but it was too late. Take a look at it and let me know if this = helps in any way > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-00 > > Thanks > Suresh > > This seems like a pretty useful thing to me, actually. Are you considering reproposing it to 6man for discussion? +1 from me for re-starting the discussion. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 03:04:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzpFQ-0002Gj-9U for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:04:48 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzpFP-0003NT-Hx for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:04:48 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzpBZ-000JTJ-Sg for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:00:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzpB0-000JQ9-OP for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:00:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 69461 invoked by uid 1007); 5 Dec 2007 08:00:12 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=SW6ItyPoO/o1zrIY8zNqwSBBSpjnL2MHS52r+Ny4VQMxlluxPLpuWi6P1YRyzZ2N ; Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:00:12 +0100 From: Gert Doering To: Kevin Day Cc: v6ops Subject: Re: 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage Message-ID: <20071205080012.GW69215@Space.Net> References: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NCC-RegID: de.space Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Hi, On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:04:01PM -0600, Kevin Day wrote: > (resending because I don't think this made it through last time, > please ignore any duplicates) I see it for the first time, so the first time definitely didn't make it here. > We had an ISP contact us saying we were announcing 32.1.73.0/24 (part > of AT&T's space) which was breaking something for them. In fact, > random subnets in 32.1.0.0/16 were showing up in their routing table > going to all sorts of ASNs, which was confusing to them. > [ .. ] Ugh. Have you been able to pinpoint the specific device in the path where the breakage occured? If yes, do you know the model and software version number? [..] > Has anyone else seen any breakage involving 32.1.0.0/16 (2001::) or > 32.2.0.0/16 (2002::)? I haven't. (Well, IPv6 peers show up in the BGP mib with 32.1.0.0 addresses, but that's a completely unrelated phenomenom). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 04:49:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izqsc-0000Hk-7U for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:49:22 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izqsb-0006wO-Ln for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:49:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzqnQ-0001Lx-W4 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:44:00 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [82.195.230.222] (helo=tarsus.bollow.ch) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izqmx-0001Ie-QJ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:43:46 +0000 Received: from tarsus.bollow.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tarsus.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D27FB28058 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:26:29 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: tarsus.bollow.ch from=nb@bollow.ch; domainkey=neutral (no signature; no policy for bollow.ch) Received: from quill.bollow.ch (116-51.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch [81.62.51.116]) by tarsus.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:26:29 +0100 (CET) Received: by quill.bollow.ch (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A9B282202B6; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:47:41 +0100 (CET) From: Norbert Bollow Organization: Bollow Software Economics Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org In-reply-to: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECA@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA542ECA@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Message-Id: <20071205094741.A9B282202B6@quill.bollow.ch> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:47:41 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi James, > > > Perhaps, the 6MAN working group could be persuaded to declare a > > particular format for future extension headers that are expected to > > have a cleartext "next header" field that packet filters can > > process? I'm not sure how much of a problem this is really going to > > cause, though... IMO this kind of issue should be addressed in order to prevent problems from arising, without waiting for potential problems to show up. > I wrote a draft about this in the old ipv6 wg. Everyone said it was > a good idea but it was too late. Take a look at it and let me know > if this helps in any way. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-00 Looks good to me. (Belongs in 6MAN.) Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 09:41:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzvRH-0003NT-5g for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:41:27 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzvRG-0007RC-LC for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:41:26 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzvLw-000OR8-3y for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:35:56 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzvLc-000OPJ-9k for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:35:43 +0000 Received: from [10.59.1.36] ([209.82.28.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB5EZKvj042755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:35:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: v6ops Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Kevin Day In-Reply-To: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:35:26 -0800 References: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 On 4 dec 2007, at 19:04, Kevin Day wrote: > Has anyone else seen any breakage involving 32.1.0.0/16 (2001::) or > 32.2.0.0/16 (2002::)? Does anyone know if McLeod suffered any > problems from 3ffe:: breaking 63.254.0.0/16 ? I saw something a bit like this once. The prefixes were the normal IPv4 table, but the next hop addresses were something like 32.x.x.x or 35.x.x.x IIRC. Turned out that on an IPv6 BGP peering session, both ends forgot to specifically disable the IPv4 address family, so IPv4 routes were exchanged but BGP was unable to resolve an IPv4 next hop address because this happened over IPv6, hence the strange next hop addresses. From BetteoakleyMcmullen@cbsnews.com Wed Dec 05 10:30:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwCN-0004EC-64; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:30:07 -0500 Received: from [78.149.188.12] (helo=dellhome) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwCM-0007i6-Jm; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:30:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host20602833.cbsnews.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id lfpabgbZ35.991356.Mvi.ePy.0043130627972 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:29:47 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Maribel Eubanks" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_DA794_01C83753.B3A46D90-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 16:19:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J01ec-0000lk-BF for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:19:38 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J01ea-0004Bj-34 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:19:38 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01Zu-0009Ib-7M for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:14:46 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [203.6.132.83] (helo=levanto.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01Zj-0009HY-9R for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:14:40 +0000 Received: from 219-90-243-19.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.243.19] helo=mail.nosense.org) by levanto.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01ZV-000FSg-RX; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:44:21 +1030 Received: from ubu.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE7B95F941; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:44:20 +1030 (CST) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:44:20 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: james woodyatt Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Message-Id: <20071206074420.872196d0.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:04:39 -0800 james woodyatt wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-12-05 09:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > ... > >> So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who =20 > >> feels /60 isn't enough. > > > > Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with > > entertainment, building services, and home office all running on > > various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough. >=20 > I'm pretty sure /60 isn't big enough over the foreseeable future. =20 > I'm *also* not sure that /56 is big enough. I'm concerned about a =20 > problem I can see arising in a world of zero-configuration IPv6 =20 > router/firewalls that implement "CPE simple security" by default, and =20 > they're scattered around the interior of residential networks, i.e. =20 > all over inside people's homes=E2=80=94 possibly because they are integ= rated =20 > into consumer devices that require expert users to turn them off. >=20 > I'm foreseeing these devices negotiating with one another what =20 > subnets to advertise in much the same way that Appletalk routers once =20 > did=E2=80=94 like back in the old hellish days when people could just b= uy =20 > routers, plug them together and they'd just work without people =20 > having to configure them with all kinds of arcane code numbers. >=20 And I think that is one of the key things IPv6 should achieve. More "modern" protocols than IPv4, like IPX and Appletalk (late 80s protocols), set an example for how easy IPv6 should be to use and operate. If IPv6 doesn't meet or exceed the capabilities of those protocols, then the designers and operators of the Internet have failed their end-users - the designers and operators parents, sisters, brothers etc. - those people who don't care how it works, they just want it to work, and want to not have to fiddle with it to get it to work. For those who worry about /48s being "wasteful", and are therefore advocating /56s or longer, would you also worry about wasting sand if you lived in a desert, or water if you lived in a rainforest? Address conservation in IPv4 is quite valid, as it is a significantly limited resource ("water in a desert"). It isn't justified in IPv6 when the address space is 2^96 times bigger. Convenience of use can and should trump the necessity of conservation. Regards, Mark. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 18:08:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03LZ-0008T3-M0 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03LY-0007AU-4K for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J03IW-000MZy-If for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:04:56 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.15.163.216] (helo=tndh.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J03Hr-000MVm-Lt for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:04:29 +0000 Received: from eagle (192.168.123.10:2839) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:04:11 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Tony Hain" To: "'james woodyatt'" , "'IPv6 Operations'" References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> Subject: RE: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:04:11 -0800 Message-ID: <07ad01c83793$263e81d0$72bb8570$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acg25BmZlKrouB4HQGySE0nx/BNm8gArauZg Content-Language: en-us Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab I agree with James here. Zero-conf router deployments will need to assume a substantial number of subnet bits are available, else the zero part goes away. Moving the bits from the consumer side of the allocation to the provider side only -assures- that they will never be used. Once ISPs build a practice around any specific prefix length, that will never change, because the business case for changing it will never be satisfied. If the prefix length is too small to begin with there is no hope that the consumer will be able to get more, because that will not conform to the one-size-fits-all provisioning model that will be deployed (it already exists for IPv4 at /32). This document should clearly state that there is no -technical- reason for anything longer than a /48, and there are clear technical reasons for nothing longer than a /60. There may be -business- reasons for nibble values in between, but those should not be confused with technical requirements. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of james woodyatt > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 6:05 PM > To: IPv6 Operations > Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-12-05 09:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > ... > >> So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who > >> feels /60 isn't enough. > > > > Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with > > entertainment, building services, and home office all running on > > various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough. > > I'm pretty sure /60 isn't big enough over the foreseeable future. > I'm *also* not sure that /56 is big enough. I'm concerned about a > problem I can see arising in a world of zero-configuration IPv6 > router/firewalls that implement "CPE simple security" by default, and > they're scattered around the interior of residential networks, i.e. > all over inside people's homes- possibly because they are integrated > into consumer devices that require expert users to turn them off. > > I'm foreseeing these devices negotiating with one another what > subnets to advertise in much the same way that Appletalk routers once > did- like back in the old hellish days when people could just buy > routers, plug them together and they'd just work without people > having to configure them with all kinds of arcane code numbers. > > > -- > james woodyatt > member of technical staff, communications engineering > From EliexpulsionEspinoza@mathgoodies.com Wed Dec 05 18:10:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03OC-0002Z2-7J; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:10:48 -0500 Received: from 84.121.237.221.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.121.237.221] helo=telex7299f0bf6) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03OB-0003t2-St; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:10:48 -0500 Received: from kaplan by mathgoodies.com with SMTP id 6XLATFaqoI for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:10:32 -0100 From: "Demetrius Espinoza" To: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03hz-000288-5w for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:31:15 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03hx-000169-0J for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:31:15 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J03g3-000P0w-JY for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:29:15 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J03fs-000OzY-IU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:29:10 +0000 Received: from dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org (dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org [130.129.22.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB5NSorl052352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:28:51 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: "'IPv6 Operations'" Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:28:56 -0800 References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 On 4 dec 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who feels / >> 60 isn't enough. > Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with > entertainment, building services, and home office all running on > various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough. Switches are cheap, routers much less so, especially if you want the traffic to flow at line rate. You need routers to keep subnets apart. So I don't see how an average home is going to use more than a handful of subnets the way things are now. There is one exception: the case where multiple routers are deployed in a cascading style and each provisions address space to the next one. Assuming a router gives up half of its own address space to its subordinate, you can have four levels of routing in your home with a / 60. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 18:31:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03iT-0002Ji-8M for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:31:45 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03iR-00019C-Pn for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:31:44 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J03i6-000PGI-7B for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:31:22 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J03hv-000PEV-DD for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:31:16 +0000 Received: from dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org (dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org [130.129.22.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB5NUv5h052389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:30:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:31:03 -0800 References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad On 4 dec 2007, at 18:04, james woodyatt wrote: > I'm pretty sure /60 isn't big enough over the foreseeable future. > I'm *also* not sure that /56 is big enough. The trouble with /56 is that it's enough for people to shoot themselves in the foot. You can build quite a large network with 256 subnets and if you then discover that you have to renumber when you need that 257th subnet that's not a good deal. If you have a /60 on the other hand, you're going to ask for something larger (which should be a /48) pretty quickly. From RaphaelfrickTrevino@lifeduringwartime.net Wed Dec 05 18:51:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0419-0007al-CO; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:51:03 -0500 Received: from [201.137.75.128] (helo=user6) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0418-00088Z-ET; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:51:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host17521231.lifeduringwartime.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 1Y8NNmoX32.617707.BPg.AOZ.7053689517406 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:50:39 +0600 Message-ID: <2392f01c83799$aefe6250$0601a8c0@user6> From: "Thaddeus Blackwell" To: Subject: Your order Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:50:39 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2392B_01C83799.AEFE6250" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071205-2, 05/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3971661e40967acfc35f708dd5f33760 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_2392B_01C83799.AEFE6250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_2392B_01C83799.AEFE6250 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_2392B_01C83799.AEFE6250-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 19:27:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04aU-00024f-J2 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:27:34 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04aU-0006CC-4V for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:27:34 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J04V9-0004u6-8q for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:22:03 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.214.123.16] (helo=ns.64translator.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J04Ud-0004sZ-Dl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:21:47 +0000 Received: from bahamas.64translator.com (bahamas.64translator.com [10.21.32.3]) by ns.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB60LThM019899 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:21:29 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fumi.local.ini.jp [10.21.254.6]) by bahamas.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB60LJiZ021328 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:21:19 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: IPv6 Operations From: Hiroshi MIYATA Subject: draft for Translator discussion Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:21:18 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Hi all, Now we have big wave of translator discussion. As RFC4966 deprecated NAT-PT, it is good thing to discuss on alternatives. On the other hand, I have some concerns. a) Time frame. 2010 is very close. Short term view is desired by the market as well as long term view. b) Target devices. It is good thing to design translation technologies to resolve all issues listed in RFC4966. Some translator proposals require modification to IPv6 end-devices. But we have to be aware that we already have many IPv6 devices deployed. So, we should take care of following kind of devices. - IPv4 devices - Existing IPv6 devices These does not have special code to work with translator. - Future IPv6 devices These has special code to work with translator. To prepare the coming IPv6 deployment, we need to clarify what is required for which kind of device by when. To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the first step) When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also required not to produce the missing part, I think. http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans-approach-00.txt (I submitted it to IETF) Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one. Thanks, ....miyata From CoyextremaHull@wikipedia.org Wed Dec 05 19:29:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04bt-0003qH-Dw; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:29:01 -0500 Received: from pc-41-162-86-200.cm.vtr.net ([200.86.162.41] helo=usuariod3c6ebc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04bs-00033J-K9; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:29:01 -0500 Received: from schultz by wikipedia.org with SMTP id HMlOrBKfjI for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:28:39 +0400 From: "Mary Walls" To: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J05hF-0004bH-CZ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:38:37 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J05hF-0003rZ-0s for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:38:37 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J05dm-000BsD-0q for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:35:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J05dF-000Bmu-Gf for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:34:46 +0000 Received: from dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org (dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org [130.129.22.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB61YE63054409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 02:34:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <446F8658-331D-4F56-B7E1-6468E14344D6@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Hiroshi MIYATA In-Reply-To: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:34:20 -0800 References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 On 5 dec 2007, at 16:21, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote: > To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the > first step) > When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also > required not to > produce the missing part, I think. > http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans-approach-00.txt > (I submitted it to IETF) > Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one. Do I understand correctly that your concern is that modifying either existing NAT-PT implementations and/or existing IPv6 hosts when we update the NAT-PT mechanism would create deployment delays? Iljitsch From ztrek@sungsoft.com Wed Dec 05 22:57:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07rU-0007iF-Ks for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:57:20 -0500 Received: from [122.138.156.115] (helo=sungsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07rS-0005Sc-1h for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:57:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 582 invoked from network); Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:58:44 +0800 Received: from unknown (HELO 00788395CAEB453) (ztrek@sungsoft.com@133.108.142.166) by 279e8a7asungsoft.com with SMTP; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:58:44 +0800 Message-ID: <001101c05f7b$e1fcc870$0bd98efc@00788395CAEB453> From: animal the To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: The elegant Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:58:44 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C05F7B.E1FCC870" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.1081 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.1409 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C05F7B.E1FCC870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable although far from perfect, especially in that it precludes a vast In biolog= ical networks, it is through innate properties and amount of people from becoming part of this new community for ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C05F7B.E1FCC870 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

virtually shop inside a digitally reproduced environment of a
=

Are you wanting a bi ,gger pen ,is?

As seen on TV

Over 748,000 Men around the world are already satis ,fied
G ,ain 2+ Inches In Le,ngth
Inc ,rease Your Pen, is Wid ,th (Gi ,rth) By u,p-to 28%
100% Sa,fe To Take, With NO S:ide Effects
No P, umps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

nixonw. com /* O, mit Empty Space

MediaMOO, that would mean that this kind of technology is limited ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C05F7B.E1FCC870-- From SheilatranseptKrause@freedict.com Wed Dec 05 23:06:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J080R-00066k-UV; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:06:35 -0500 Received: from [189.154.32.60] (helo=casa4426f2105f.gateway.2wire.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J080Q-00038T-JA; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:06:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host17809281.freedict.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 2bxvCGOD83.104597.3OB.HP8.4948571317278 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:06:05 +0600 Message-ID: <3ee3801c837bd$5faab9f0$ef01a8c0@casa4426f2105f> From: "Monica Clifton" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_3EE34_01C837BD.5FAAB9F0-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 00:24:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09E7-0002px-5E for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:24:47 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09E6-0001gF-GB for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:24:47 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J098y-00097c-3r for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:19:28 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.187] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J098T-000949-AN for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:19:12 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so130464rvf for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.251.9 with SMTP id y9mr1472833wfh.1196918334614; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:18:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.246.19 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:18:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:18:54 -0800 From: "Erik Kline" To: "Hiroshi MIYATA" Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion Cc: "IPv6 Operations" In-Reply-To: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a On 12/5/07, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote: > Hi all, > > Now we have big wave of translator discussion. > As RFC4966 deprecated NAT-PT, it is good thing to discuss on > alternatives. > > On the other hand, I have some concerns. > > a) Time frame. > 2010 is very close. > Short term view is desired by the market as well as long term view. > > b) Target devices. > It is good thing to design translation technologies to resolve > all issues listed in RFC4966. > Some translator proposals require modification to IPv6 end-devices. > But we have to be aware that we already have many IPv6 devices > deployed. > > So, we should take care of following kind of devices. > - IPv4 devices > - Existing IPv6 devices > These does not have special code to work with translator. > - Future IPv6 devices > These has special code to work with translator. > > To prepare the coming IPv6 deployment, we need to clarify what is > required for > which kind of device by when. > > To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the > first step) > When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also > required not to > produce the missing part, I think. > > http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans-approach-00.txt > (I submitted it to IETF) > > Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one. > > Thanks, > > ....miyata > > I'm sure I'll be derided for eternity and my eat my words, but at the moment it looks like the old NAT-PT (2766, iirc) works just fine for my deployment/transition needs (for IPv6-only corporate networks). None of the objections in 4966 actually apply in my situation. I may be the only one, but I intend to keep using the deprecated method until I have to change. Perhaps my company is degenerately simple, but I'm fairly sure I can reap IPv4 networks (once I've achieved wide dual-stack deployment and healthy IPv6 transit, etc.). Of course there are Operating System *platform* issues (like why do I have run DHCPv4 for certain OSes if I'm trying to run an IPv6-only network?). -Erik From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 00:52:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09fO-0002TF-5v for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:52:58 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09fN-0003RY-M9 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:52:58 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J09dM-000C7P-V5 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:50:52 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.214.123.16] (helo=ns.64translator.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J09cr-000C4u-O2 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:50:37 +0000 Received: from bahamas.64translator.com (bahamas.64translator.com [10.21.32.3]) by ns.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB65mflr024464; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:44 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fumi.local.ini.jp [10.21.254.6]) by bahamas.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB65mUDX025318; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:31 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) In-Reply-To: <446F8658-331D-4F56-B7E1-6468E14344D6@muada.com> References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> <446F8658-331D-4F56-B7E1-6468E14344D6@muada.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Hiroshi MIYATA Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:48:29 +0900 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Hi Iljitsh, Thanks for your reading. If we have only one approach that we require modification of existing IPv6 hosts, it may create deployment delay. Modifying NAT-PT itself may not create delays, as far as it does not require IPv6 host modification. Also we have to be aware that there are some translator implementation based on NAT-PT, but not fully compliant NAT-PT, since vendors already realized that implementations fully compliant to NAT-PT does not work well. The advantage of it is not requiring modification on IPv6 hosts. ;-) The disadvantage of it is not resolving all issues listed on RFC4966. ;-( I implicitly think that some vendors may think it is too expensive to implement IPv6 host which fully support perfect and/or multipurpose tranlator. My another point is directing document is also required. Thanks, ...miyata On 2007/12/06, at 10:34, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 5 dec 2007, at 16:21, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote: > >> To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the >> first step) >> When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is >> also required not to >> produce the missing part, I think. > >> http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans- >> approach-00.txt >> (I submitted it to IETF) > >> Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one. > > Do I understand correctly that your concern is that modifying > either existing NAT-PT implementations and/or existing IPv6 hosts > when we update the NAT-PT mechanism would create deployment delays? > > Iljitsch From LatoyawayAbrams@livestrong.org Thu Dec 06 01:05:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09rJ-0000wq-Sb; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:05:17 -0500 Received: from rrcs-24-123-46-245.central.biz.rr.com ([24.123.46.245] helo=janedell.neo.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J09rJ-0001QW-GF; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:05:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host28369830.livestrong.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id oTRKZ37L14.857594.IF1.Ke7.5159122378293 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:05:15 +0500 Message-ID: From: "Patty Smiley" To: Subject: Hi Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 01:05:15 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_D8902_01C837CE.083179F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3971661e40967acfc35f708dd5f33760 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_D8902_01C837CE.083179F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_D8902_01C837CE.083179F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_D8902_01C837CE.083179F0-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 02:25:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0B6g-0007b1-Qs for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:25:14 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0B6Z-0007Mm-Rz for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:25:14 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0B1D-000K60-MS for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:19:35 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.214.123.16] (helo=ns.64translator.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0B0e-000K4C-0e for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:19:17 +0000 Received: from bahamas.64translator.com (bahamas.64translator.com [10.21.32.3]) by ns.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB67Isax025647; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:18:54 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fumi.local.ini.jp [10.21.254.6]) by bahamas.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB67Ihrr026962; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:18:44 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) In-Reply-To: <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <54896023-1F3B-4132-8DAE-6A750D006F25@tahi.org> Cc: "IPv6 Operations" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Hiroshi MIYATA Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:18:41 +0900 To: Erik Kline X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Erik, Thanks, for your comment. I can agree deprecating NAT-PT since it is fully combined with controversial DNS-ALG. I think there would be some translation solutions, depending on the requirement. So some portion of NAT-PT works well in some limited environment. Then it is one of the approaches to sprit apart NAT-PT and pickup some portion and give some simple modification if required. Of course adding some notification what is the advantage/disadvantage, recommended usage/unrecommended usage. ....miyata On 2007/12/06, at 14:18, Erik Kline wrote: > On 12/5/07, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Now we have big wave of translator discussion. >> As RFC4966 deprecated NAT-PT, it is good thing to discuss on >> alternatives. >> >> On the other hand, I have some concerns. >> >> a) Time frame. >> 2010 is very close. >> Short term view is desired by the market as well as long >> term view. >> >> b) Target devices. >> It is good thing to design translation technologies to >> resolve >> all issues listed in RFC4966. >> Some translator proposals require modification to IPv6 end- >> devices. >> But we have to be aware that we already have many IPv6 >> devices >> deployed. >> >> So, we should take care of following kind of devices. >> - IPv4 devices >> - Existing IPv6 devices >> These does not have special code to work with >> translator. >> - Future IPv6 devices >> These has special code to work with translator. >> >> To prepare the coming IPv6 deployment, we need to clarify what is >> required for >> which kind of device by when. >> >> To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the >> first step) >> When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also >> required not to >> produce the missing part, I think. >> >> http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans- >> approach-00.txt >> (I submitted it to IETF) >> >> Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one. >> >> Thanks, >> >> ....miyata >> >> > > I'm sure I'll be derided for eternity and my eat my words, but at the > moment it looks like the old NAT-PT (2766, iirc) works just fine for > my deployment/transition needs (for IPv6-only corporate networks). > None of the objections in 4966 actually apply in my situation. I may > be the only one, but I intend to keep using the deprecated method > until I have to change. Perhaps my company is degenerately simple, > but I'm fairly sure I can reap IPv4 networks (once I've achieved wide > dual-stack deployment and healthy IPv6 transit, etc.). Of course > there are Operating System *platform* issues (like why do I have run > DHCPv4 for certain OSes if I'm trying to run an IPv6-only network?). > > -Erik > From JeaniefalseVera@annapolischamber.com Thu Dec 06 04:25:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0CzB-0006c8-Gw; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:25:37 -0500 Received: from 24-182-234-45.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com ([24.182.234.45] helo=ownercb24a1fba) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0CzB-0001oW-6O; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:25:37 -0500 Received: from adenine by annapolischamber.com with SMTP id xpKT7lg3UX for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 03:26:39 +0600 From: "Loraine Bravo" To: Subject: Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! We pay you to play. USA players too! Download and GO! Free money free fun. http://eurocasinoam.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 06:03:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0EWA-00027t-VS for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:03:46 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0EW6-0008PR-7G for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:03:46 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0EQl-000E2N-BW for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:58:11 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.188] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0EQD-000E0X-NZ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:57:56 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so237820rvf for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:57:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.101.17 with SMTP id y17mr1508822wfb.1196938656445; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:57:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.246.19 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 02:57:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <67099930712060257x378b9ce2q2235a50e5e00ebf6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 02:57:36 -0800 From: "Erik Kline" To: "Hiroshi MIYATA" Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion Cc: "IPv6 Operations" In-Reply-To: <54896023-1F3B-4132-8DAE-6A750D006F25@tahi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> <54896023-1F3B-4132-8DAE-6A750D006F25@tahi.org> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 932cba6e0228cc603da43d861a7e09d8 Miyata, To be clear I'm actually in favour of 2766, and not a big fan of 4966. 4966 seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face, to me. But I wasn't participating in the IETF when all this was decided so I can't really comment. Maybe I'm just too naive or just not smart enough, but I'm contemplating the start of a future endgame where I begin to turn off IPv4 networks inside my company one at a time. I'll need dual stack for a long time but once I've got IPv6 broadly available then I should be able to start examining networks and the applications my users are hitting and identify subnets that have no real need for IPv4 anymore (as long as something like NAT-PT is in place). I'm imagining these would be the sort of corporate networks where the traffic is principally HTTP, maybe some CIFS/NFS, and perhaps some SMTP. Heck even ssh traffic would work just fine on an IPv6-only network (with some extra known_hosts key accepting). For these users' traffic 2766 is basically OK. Perhaps I just haven't run into something that will make me see sense, but it seems the needs are pretty simple for us. Again: perhaps our needs are degenerately simple or perhaps my thinking is degenerately simple. Of course if I run into problems described in 4966 (or not mentioned there, for that matter) I have a line of defense lots of people may not have: I get to ask "Is there a legitimate business need for this to work?" (the old "defer to higher authority" negotiation tactic) Let me say though that any solution that involves an update to the IPv6 stack *on the hosts* is not a solution for me (I *fully respect* that it may well be wonderful for other users, networks, applications, or purposes and could deserve considerable attention from the WG). My host IPv6 stacks are deployed (it's just the routing isn't all there yet, and perhaps IPv6 is disabled administratively). I don't want to have to upgrade my entire fleet of VendorOS desktops and servers to get the lastest shim/nat-aware ipv6 stack. I want to buy a device. I already have (or will eventually :-) a bunch of IPv6-capable hosts; I just want to buy something to stick between them and the IPv4 world until it's safe to let it die (in 10 years time, or whenever). I've probably wandered well off topic and much of what I've said may utterly lack relevance so I'll stop now. Thanks, -Erik On 12/5/07, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote: > Erik, > > Thanks, for your comment. > > I can agree deprecating NAT-PT since it is fully combined with > controversial DNS-ALG. > > I think there would be some translation solutions, depending on the > requirement. > So some portion of NAT-PT works well in some limited environment. > > Then it is one of the approaches to sprit apart NAT-PT and pickup > some portion > and give some simple modification if required. > Of course adding some notification what is the advantage/disadvantage, > recommended usage/unrecommended usage. > > ....miyata > > > > On 2007/12/06, at 14:18, Erik Kline wrote: > > > On 12/5/07, Hiroshi MIYATA wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Now we have big wave of translator discussion. > >> As RFC4966 deprecated NAT-PT, it is good thing to discuss on > >> alternatives. > >> > >> On the other hand, I have some concerns. > >> > >> a) Time frame. > >> 2010 is very close. > >> Short term view is desired by the market as well as long > >> term view. > >> > >> b) Target devices. > >> It is good thing to design translation technologies to > >> resolve > >> all issues listed in RFC4966. > >> Some translator proposals require modification to IPv6 end- > >> devices. > >> But we have to be aware that we already have many IPv6 > >> devices > >> deployed. > >> > >> So, we should take care of following kind of devices. > >> - IPv4 devices > >> - Existing IPv6 devices > >> These does not have special code to work with > >> translator. > >> - Future IPv6 devices > >> These has special code to work with translator. > >> > >> To prepare the coming IPv6 deployment, we need to clarify what is > >> required for > >> which kind of device by when. > >> > >> To ask your opinion, I described my concern briefly.(just as the > >> first step) > >> When we consider the tranlator, this kind of document itself is also > >> required not to > >> produce the missing part, I think. > >> > >> http://www.tahi.org/~miyata/doc/draft-miyata-v6ops-trans- > >> approach-00.txt > >> (I submitted it to IETF) > >> > >> Please take a glance and give your comments. It is very short one. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> ....miyata > >> > >> > > > > I'm sure I'll be derided for eternity and my eat my words, but at the > > moment it looks like the old NAT-PT (2766, iirc) works just fine for > > my deployment/transition needs (for IPv6-only corporate networks). > > None of the objections in 4966 actually apply in my situation. I may > > be the only one, but I intend to keep using the deprecated method > > until I have to change. Perhaps my company is degenerately simple, > > but I'm fairly sure I can reap IPv4 networks (once I've achieved wide > > dual-stack deployment and healthy IPv6 transit, etc.). Of course > > there are Operating System *platform* issues (like why do I have run > > DHCPv4 for certain OSes if I'm trying to run an IPv6-only network?). > > > > -Erik > > > > From LetafreezeSams@chinadigitaltimes.net Thu Dec 06 06:19:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ElY-000333-0s; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:19:40 -0500 Received: from cpe-77.38.1.120.cable.t-1.si ([77.38.1.120] helo=pavlic68b2df1c) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ElX-0006nW-LH; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:19:39 -0500 Received: from glycerin by chinadigitaltimes.net with SMTP id gHTrYrafnB for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:19:10 -0100 From: "Louella Reagan" To: Subject: We're serious about fun. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We have it all! Get your bonus and walk the red carpet to winnings and fun. Our casino is for you and everyone else who likes to win! When YOU WIN, we win! http://eurocasinoal.com/ From JavierspectrometerJacobs@mathleague.com Thu Dec 06 08:12:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0GWK-0003WS-1X; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:12:04 -0500 Received: from [91.164.104.147] (helo=wazzania) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0GWJ-0003G0-JV; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:12:03 -0500 Received: from revenue by mathleague.com with SMTP id 1Lzqlsdg8V for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:11:47 -0100 From: "Jared Harvey" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0KYs-0003KM-RV for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:30:58 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0KYs-0000G9-48 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:30:58 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0KTi-0004UV-1G for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:25:38 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0KT4-0004PV-Gz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:25:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 42638 invoked by uid 1007); 6 Dec 2007 17:24:52 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=RhKMQYZdoP9GhT/jOkFCT2Zr3dp5/d+hEo6oSqmdn82JW1JpfNvYknmkU4p2fKNz ; Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:24:52 +0100 From: Gert Doering To: Tony Hain Cc: 'james woodyatt' , 'IPv6 Operations' Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Message-ID: <20071206172452.GR69215@Space.Net> References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> <07ad01c83793$263e81d0$72bb8570$@net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <07ad01c83793$263e81d0$72bb8570$@net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NCC-RegID: de.space Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Hi, On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 03:04:11PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote: > This document should clearly state that there is no -technical- reason for > anything longer than a /48, and there are clear technical reasons for > nothing longer than a /60. There may be -business- reasons for nibble values > in between, but those should not be confused with technical requirements. Agree. (I do wonder a bit why zero-conf devices would all of a sudden invent lots of independent *subnets*, though). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From vahe@uboc.com Thu Dec 06 12:41:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Kit-0005ZH-Vc for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:41:20 -0500 Received: from host29-205-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.15.205.29]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Kit-0007ea-4j for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c83766$010f74f6$15480e88@oxqssbx> From: "Sedaris" To: Subject: [3]: Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:54:43 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We offer the software for downloads only. http://cgycihp.reallytoppoem.net From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 13:12:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0LCr-00049D-Rh for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:12:17 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0LCr-00045o-IR for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:12:17 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0LBO-000AD7-Q2 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:10:46 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.214.123.16] (helo=ns.64translator.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0LBB-000ABk-TL for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:10:41 +0000 Received: from bahamas.64translator.com (bahamas.64translator.com [10.21.32.3]) by ns.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB6IAWPj035649 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:10:32 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fumi.local.ini.jp [10.21.254.6]) by bahamas.64translator.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB6IANbZ034879 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:10:23 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from miyata@tahi.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <67099930712060257x378b9ce2q2235a50e5e00ebf6@mail.gmail.com> References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> <54896023-1F3B-4132-8DAE-6A750D006F25@tahi.org> <67099930712060257x378b9ce2q2235a50e5e00ebf6@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5C44C891-A36B-4FF7-9A78-1C531C7F13BC@tahi.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Hiroshi MIYATA Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:10:22 +0900 To: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Hi all, I failed to add one issue. There is well-known issue for generic translator, which is numeric address embedded contents. Typically, some html files contain link like http://[numeric address]/something So, we need to make some guidelines for "translation friendly contents". Let me raise one more action item in my document. 5.4. Guideline for "Translation Friendly Contests" Thanks, ....miyata On 2007/12/06, at 19:57, Erik Kline wrote: > I'm imagining these would be the sort of corporate networks where the > traffic is principally HTTP, maybe some CIFS/NFS, and perhaps some > SMTP. Heck even ssh traffic would work just fine on an IPv6-only > network (with some extra known_hosts key accepting). For these users' > traffic 2766 is basically OK. Perhaps I just haven't run into > something that will make me see sense, but it seems the needs are > pretty simple for us. Again: perhaps our needs are degenerately > simple or perhaps my thinking is degenerately simple. > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 13:37:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0LbL-0006Ri-E4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:37:35 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0LbJ-0006Pc-8l for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:37:35 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0LZG-000DBo-Kv for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:35:26 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [192.16.178.5] (helo=mail.nttv6.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0LYy-000D9Z-81 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:35:21 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lB6IZ3j6073186; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:35:04 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from arifumi@nttv6.net) Message-ID: <475840D8.9000908@nttv6.net> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:35:04 +0900 From: Arifumi Matsumoto User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Kline CC: Hiroshi MIYATA , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <67099930712052118y3c029a61iae41c139acec26ed@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.nttv6.net [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:35:04 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f > I'm sure I'll be derided for eternity and my eat my words, but at the > moment it looks like the old NAT-PT (2766, iirc) works just fine for > my deployment/transition needs (for IPv6-only corporate networks). My boss is in IPv6-only(NAT-PTed) network and has several problems: - he cannot use Google cache and not a small number of web pages, because IPv4 address is embedded in URL. - he cannot use MSN messenger, because the protocol isn't IPv6 enabled. - he cannot use Skype and other several softwares, because the protocol or software probably don't support IPv6. IMHO, I agree with Miyata-san in that NAT-PT itself maynot be evil iff it is placed in the right place and situation. Regards, Arifumi Matsumoto From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 14:24:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MKg-0001A6-4u for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:24:26 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MKf-0001fh-OK for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:24:26 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MJD-000Ipk-MW for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MIw-000IoO-Qy for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:50 +0000 Received: from relay8.apple.com (relay8.apple.com [17.128.113.38]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566851A6581E for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay8.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay8.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 456E240095 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807126-a8966bb0000038b7-3e-47584bfc1dbc Received: from [17.206.23.192] (il0602a-dhcp64.apple.com [17.206.23.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay8.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 2916E4008F for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <20071206172452.GR69215@Space.Net> References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> <589539B7-34CA-4839-B5C0-7F1BAAB7C1DE@apple.com> <07ad01c83793$263e81d0$72bb8570$@net> <20071206172452.GR69215@Space.Net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:22:30 -0800 To: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 On Dec 6, 2007, at 09:24, Gert Doering wrote: > > (I do wonder a bit why zero-conf devices would all of a sudden =20 > invent lots of independent *subnets*, though). Consider how RTMP worked in Appletalk (except, try not to get hung up =20= about the historical problem of excessive unsolicited broadcasts=97 =20 pretend it was designed by people who understand how to do =20 exponential backoff and keep multicast traffic to a minimum). Zero-configuration IPv6 routers would need to generate random subnet =20 identifiers from a sufficiently large space to ensure that collision =20 is statistically rare, because collision requires renumbering, which =20 causes more traffic. When the subnet identifier space is large =20 enough, then the network stabilizes quickly after a collision, i.e. =20 typically after only one iteration. If the subnet identifier space =20 is too small, then network add/join events might require many =20 iterations of the resolution protocol before an available subnet =20 number is found. Why might zeroconf routers be more prevalent in the future than they =20 are now? Answers: p1) IPv6 forwarding is cheaper and easier to do in =20= hardware than IPv4 forwarding, so L3-switches should become cheaper; =20 p2) the day might never come that IEEE 802.1 is the only sub-IP layer =20= one ever needs and bridging (not routing) is how networks might =20 therefore be interconnected in residential environments; and p3) =20 consumer devices are rarely configured for any mode other than the =20 factory default, and developers need to choose defaults that are =20 optimized for the broadest possible set of usage scenarios, i.e. =20 secure out of the shipping container, with a firewall turned on until =20= the user encounters a need to reconfigure or disable it. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From EdithexudationLyon@mathgoodies.com Thu Dec 06 15:38:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0NTs-0004fh-H5; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:38:00 -0500 Received: from [86.43.94.254] (helo=t16) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0NTs-0004pr-2P; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:38:00 -0500 Received: from exodus by mathgoodies.com with SMTP id CDMJHz4BzU for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:37:38 +0000 From: "Grace Starr" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OFv-0001X0-La for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:27:39 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OFv-0002cd-B0 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:27:39 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0OAD-0006dL-2Q for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:21:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.146.176] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0OA2-0006cb-7e for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:21:39 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so871191wah for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:21:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mgYyjoITRHQNEG1nqQx2jKM4BkllL7JpXkFXEgZjMvU=; b=Oq561Zx6akoEoErJU0MdqjKJsN5OmQGd7r1lBAwmjSwvEYuXri0qILPfTzy8hNg2wXU/KQNHo13J4xU+vn0huukZlw4Cs+PMUhnQdoR4ww4ArgrywUCTZOmtwv+825UMAVyPMFAqEiACfo6RvDiOWLSEqWD8MV5F14c78yj/wfY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pJS/Ty1Kg01ri/jQXYxqBeWCz0HVFg5mUAh2YEMpWxezNJgIUflpz026O4d1zgCZUDAlr+6i9qiZknfUA3aukOjeRuyo0J8LKpa/yDkf3AxOaKhnfwncTgCVeG4y4FW83mctIuwwl5Ke1h7Tx5dNE1LVbgytTjZC6zSo92qsS+M= Received: by 10.114.124.1 with SMTP id w1mr2544826wac.1196976093514; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j7sm1027915wah.2007.12.06.13.21.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:21:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475867DA.7060604@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:21:30 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: 'IPv6 Operations' Subject: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt References: <200712031645.lB3Gjkdq022963@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <475464B1.8070303@gmail.com> <045601c836ae$0fcb99f0$2f62cdd0$@net> <4755FB3B.5070007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d On 2007-12-06 12:28, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 4 dec 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who feels /60 >>> isn't enough. > >> Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with >> entertainment, building services, and home office all running on >> various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough. > > Switches are cheap, routers much less so, especially if you want the > traffic to flow at line rate. You need routers to keep subnets apart. So > I don't see how an average home is going to use more than a handful of > subnets the way things are now. Switches don't work well between different technologies. I remember reading that luxury cars today contain at least ten different level 2 networks in various technologies. I don't see why we should expect future homes to be much different - and as soon as you have multiple technologies, cheap switches can't be assumed. So I don't think we should be conservative. Brian > > There is one exception: the case where multiple routers are deployed in > a cascading style and each provisions address space to the next one. > Assuming a router gives up half of its own address space to its > subordinate, you can have four levels of routing in your home with a /60. > From BessiedominantByrne@wikipedia.org Thu Dec 06 16:35:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ONw-0002mA-7V; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:35:56 -0500 Received: from [201.245.93.126] (helo=pcyadis) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ONv-0001qQ-Mi; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:35:56 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host31482743.wikipedia.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id eDMp1vD958.040889.MVV.A7p.2939707732957 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:35:41 +0500 Message-ID: <20acf01c8384f$fa58baf0$9500a8c0@pcyadis> From: "Constance Beltran" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_20ACB_01C8384F.FA58BAF0-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 16:41:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OSx-0001Hv-Ga for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:41:07 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0OSx-0003qf-3P for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:41:07 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0ORb-0009IC-Jv for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:39:43 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0OR2-0009Cs-9V for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:39:23 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2007 13:39:08 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB6Ld7kw008986; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:39:07 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB6Ld5ql008298; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 21:39:05 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:39:01 -0800 Received: from dhcp-10cc.ietf70.org ([10.21.115.117]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:39:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> From: Ralph Droms To: Geoff Huston Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: IPv6<->IPv4 address translation is not NAT? Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:38:59 -0500 Cc: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 21:39:01.0370 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A667DA0:01C83850] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=293; t=1196977147; x=1197841147; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ralph=20Droms=20 |Subject:=20IPv6<->IPv4=20address=20translation=20is=20not=20NAT? |Sender:=20; bh=M+ncUKl2jzpHVchJZTAfb9E7ickFavpExaFGx7vEsK4=; b=XOMaq0OC/9/qtKnK0ok9S6yD6wS++PDe/OHzjcC/DDQAdAv0eqm8pcMSatsElt2wXFfLTd5r gkhESGt2Y2Oy5y2XMElUPyisn8+3VVwsIfVDIJDORLhhyEbo9lXGQxzn; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Geoff - in the v6ops meeting you said that the IPv6 transition problem is not a NAT problem. Can you explain in more detail? There must be, I think. a translation between addresses from incompatible address spaces, just like NATv4. What do you think is the difference? - Ralph From JodiewinceWoody@annapolissailing.com Thu Dec 06 20:19:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Rs9-0001uv-3C; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:19:21 -0500 Received: from pool-71-174-237-93.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([71.174.237.93] helo=et2882.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Rs5-0001nb-NN; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:19:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host86478270.annapolissailing.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 0V6WFy2903.506689.QZm.n2y.9327084546858 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:18:33 +0500 Message-ID: <962b01c8386f$2ac3a7d0$0201a8c0@eT2882> From: "Katharine Hooker" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_9627_01C8386F.2AC3A7D0-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 21:16:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Sl3-0002ZC-H4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:16:05 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Sl2-0006so-5R for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:16:05 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0Sab-000BTn-NP for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:05:17 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0SXk-000BAe-Tc for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:03:59 +0000 Received: from dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org (dhcp-16c6.ietf70.org [130.129.22.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB71VlhA077491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:31:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:31:54 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Jari basically said this ^^ However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to make them. From bertocki@lumiere-center.com Thu Dec 06 21:17:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Smk-0003Ss-5m; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:17:50 -0500 Received: from c-76-110-58-71.hsd1.fl.comcast.net ([76.110.58.71] helo=RADIANCE.hsd1.fl.comcast.net.) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Smh-00071I-59; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:17:49 -0500 Received: from [76.110.58.71] by smtp.secureserver.net; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:21:11 -0800 Message-ID: <01c83834$c71bc580$473a6e4c@bertocki> From: "Abigail Mitchell" To: Subject: in low-income, violence-prone Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:21:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Hi I'm 22 years old I read your profile online and I was intrested in getting to know you better Reply to me and tell me about yourself if you want to chat I will send a pic and some of my info right away email me at Foot@EngineRide.info , that will be sent to me directly Thank you From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 21:18:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0SnQ-0005UE-Um for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:18:32 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0SnP-00074a-2L for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:18:32 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0SYm-000BDm-3u for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:03:24 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [217.126.187.160] (helo=consulintel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0SVD-000AtK-HG for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:01:39 +0000 Received: from consulintel.es ([213.172.48.142]) by consulintel.com (consulintel.com) (Cipher TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50000171997.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:44:58 +0100 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1196995315; x=1197600115; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=LKAnQ+rgMV5pUGrl91dn1zTOQUU T5cdqjOTspeXyMSzJYbp3ITQHsHOQ0/WUn7FuTYPXhlGfaejw/k9DEhX3MWIyupw DaRG7JiDmSzP7V++QAJXncWMJTM8pfE7flB/xUnfvkups4wJvm2+cHv4EWOoLC7O nu1/G4v78sCXAuw0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=r+NJ1eqSkCnNULZ4boq64QpllXFCs/traGXprKzksCM/EtfvHmAW1Cwm2XGGZTTfEAX2sCpN2nKs3PWo2XMk25E6bBFiKi1I9X43HI2e1XF24sfKaJ8nuwxU+k2oi5zXsKI5ArKOXw5ZMzpButhrPMvMndWL3fRsEImOxdVpbYY=; Received: from [130.129.16.75] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002744945.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:41:53 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:44:53 -0800 Subject: Translation versus tunneling document From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Translation versus tunneling document Thread-Index: Acg4csMOAXEGiqRmEdykyAANky3PwA== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071207:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::F+kvioOmrBLGGS0o:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000oxL Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:41:54 +0100 X-MDRemoteIP: 213.172.48.142 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.com, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:44:59 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 I've talked with Fred after the v6ops WG meeting this afternoon, and I will work in a document comparing the applicability of existing tunneling protocols and a possible translation mechanism in different scenarios. I think this will be useful to determine if we really need the translation mechanism for all the cases or just for a small subset, making easier the development of that translation protocol. I will try to get this done in the next couple of weeks, at least a first draft. If some other people is interested in working on this, please let me know. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 22:19:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0TkX-0002tz-Az for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:19:37 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0TkX-0002m2-38 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:19:37 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0TdA-000Hmy-Ri for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:12:00 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0TVl-000H4A-6w for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:10:17 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::16:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB72a4fM078672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:36:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:36:11 -0800 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 On 6 dec 2007, at 17:44, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I've talked with Fred after the v6ops WG meeting this afternoon, and > I will > work in a document comparing the applicability of existing tunneling > protocols and a possible translation mechanism in different scenarios. Would it be possible to evaluate deployment issues, i.e., whether said mechanism is already available today in hosts, and if it isn't, whether it can easily be implemented in a modular way so it can be added by others than the OS vendor? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 22:21:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Tma-0003om-Dx for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:21:44 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0TmZ-0002tI-S1 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:21:44 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0Thp-000IO9-0C for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:16:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [217.126.187.160] (helo=consulintel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0TXp-000HIl-QH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:12:27 +0000 Received: from consulintel.es ([213.172.48.142]) by consulintel.com (consulintel.com) (Cipher TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50000171998.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:45:48 +0100 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1196998591; x=1197603391; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=bR1L8jR02BS6tb q7T7vH9SO5dqlu+iXe8RhwFAtK7e8oy17nvQzWcy0ywooWxyUv0ZiALE4ubG8SAv 8QnnnRTA1/oR9NUjXJFvMK/xHtebuNOglDgomZLQlLTe4q6dZsLpMN1H13fFvxGq KmiCuDN53UjSoNB7KDfdwBqG2Dp98= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=EgBKXiT2lfC5oVd+gHYfJ0g34OmT80kO7Z1Xle9+zF7rbXLuzEG+91MSxgjJN6+xhbZlqk257vSgyWAO6I2UoYXRFunJ14XGayakBjEayvVluwBJ8zzXV6xC2EUKZ/cIJbSj1TfgO3v0stw4IWvp9sZmyR2C78a4T+U/JpS5F7k=; Received: from [130.129.16.75] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002744967.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:36:30 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:39:28 -0800 Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg4emMboenBzKRtEdykyAANky3PwA== In-Reply-To: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071207:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::b0myC1GKmhBXMJfp:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000018fy Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:36:31 +0100 X-MDRemoteIP: 213.172.48.142 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.com, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:45:49 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa I don't think is a good idea to modify IPv4. It is the same difficulty than having IPv6 in those boxes where the manufacturers aren't longer in the market, they have no spare memory, or whatever. And I believe is not good to make a difference between what is a server and a client from this perspective. May be need to look into concrete examples, but it is looking already for a solution too early ? We should really focus in trying to make it in the hosts that are have an IPv6 stack. Regards, Jordi > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:31:54 -0800 > Para: IPv6 Operations > Asunto: v4 side unmodifiable > > Jari basically said this ^^ > > However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for > non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good > reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to > make them. > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From CasandrahungryLim@grandforksherald.com Thu Dec 06 22:32:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0TxN-0005BP-3k; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:32:53 -0500 Received: from host-70-45-10-222.onelinkpr.net ([70.45.10.222] helo=pingon.belkin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0TxM-0001nW-PE; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:32:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host87105821.grandforksherald.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id lmUFGBp258.946296.Bmc.wXb.2927624837435 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 23:38:18 +0500 Message-ID: <21c8001c8388b$057d0c70$0402a8c0@Pingon> From: "Diann Fenton" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_21C7C_01C8388B.057D0C70-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 23:16:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Udq-0000i8-JM for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:16:46 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Udq-0006H1-5x for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:16:46 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0Ub2-0005N0-6O for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:13:52 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0UaB-0005II-G4 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:13:19 +0000 Received: from briand-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.90] helo=BrianD-2.local) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1J0UaA-000147-DV; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:12:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4758C847.5030200@ca.afilias.info> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:12:55 -0800 From: Brian Dickson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: briand@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I don't think is a good idea to modify IPv4. It is the same difficulty than > having IPv6 in those boxes where the manufacturers aren't longer in the > market, they have no spare memory, or whatever. > > And I believe is not good to make a difference between what is a server and > a client from this perspective. May be need to look into concrete examples, > but it is looking already for a solution too early ? > > I think that, in order to ensure we find the solutions which can be deployed (easily, quickly, cheaply, etc.), we need to identify three things: - what can be done (on an element-by-element basis) - what the required elements of a specific solution involve - what the specific corner cases are in the problem space. Here is an example of the problem space having a corner case: If a content provider (who operates farms of servers, where the servers are commodity, new, and open source), wants to provide content to IPv6-only sites, there is a real problem. Even if the provider has IPv6 transit and a dual-stack infrastructure, there is a problem. If the provider adds AAAA records, it can trigger a bad user experience from unintended sources (e.g. toredo hosts). These are not within the control of the content provider. The content provider is limited to solutions within its control. So, that provider may actually *want* to have solutions from our solution space as options, and is likely willing to make changes on the v4 *server* host to accomplish this. It is an exception, of course, but a very important one for consideration, as the uptake of IPv6 depends on content being available, at no worse a quality of user experience as under IPv4 (for the same sites). Brian Dickson > We should really focus in trying to make it in the hosts that are have an > IPv6 stack. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > >> De: Iljitsch van Beijnum >> Responder a: >> Fecha: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:31:54 -0800 >> Para: IPv6 Operations >> Asunto: v4 side unmodifiable >> >> Jari basically said this ^^ >> >> However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for >> non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good >> reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to >> make them. >> >> From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 03:39:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0YkX-0003VO-QX for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:39:57 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0YkX-0000RG-Gc for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:39:57 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0Yf9-0008AY-Dt for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:34:23 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.214.123.2] (helo=sherry.localhost) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0Yf7-0008AF-A7 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:34:22 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sherry.localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E5F324317 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:34:20 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4759058B.7090604@64translator.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:34:19 +0900 From: Masahito Endo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft for Translator discussion References: <622A6B7B-7F65-49BA-9D35-EB04B752270D@tahi.org> <446F8658-331D-4F56-B7E1-6468E14344D6@muada.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 > Also we have to be aware that there are some translator implementation > based on NAT-PT, but not fully compliant NAT-PT, since vendors already > realized that implementations fully compliant to NAT-PT does not work > well. We (Yokogawa) have a translator that based on NAT-PT. But It is not fully compliant NAT-PT. We tried to operate an IPv6 only network using our translator. At that time, there were some problems and we implemented the functions to solve them. > The advantage of it is not requiring modification on IPv6 hosts. ;-) > The disadvantage of it is not resolving all issues listed on RFC4966. ;-( About our translator, some issues of RFC4966 were already solved. In limited environment, it works well. But, there are some applications and contents that depended on IPv4 address. I think we must consider about it to communicate between IPv4 and IPv6 network and to deploy IPv6. thanks, // masaxmasa From DebrablokeSwain@foxnews.com Fri Dec 07 07:32:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0cNA-000184-2B; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:32:04 -0500 Received: from 82.143.102-84.rev.gaoland.net ([84.102.143.82] helo=nomwwf1hbdmb6d) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0cN9-0000gx-Mf; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:32:03 -0500 Received: from dewey by foxnews.com with SMTP id 80DBcGLQoG for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:31:52 -0100 From: "Anna Newell" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0cnl-0000yE-2l; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:59:33 -0500 Received: from [89.7.3.30] (helo=pap) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0cnk-00023D-LM; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:59:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host05961849.newsweek.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id j37Iu7XZ28.845828.7Fx.sLI.6694499892364 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:59:16 -0100 Message-ID: From: "Rose Womack" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_A2D7_01C838D1.0050E140-- From hee-sub@mccabe.com Fri Dec 07 08:35:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0dMj-0004gl-5w for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:35:41 -0500 Received: from dyndsl-091-096-105-057.ewe-ip-backbone.de ([91.96.105.57]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0dMi-0003b6-K9 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:35:41 -0500 Received: from [91.96.105.57] by dns2.valueweb.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:38:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c838d6$05c04fdc$9b8130be@tygnrt> From: "byrle marius" To: Subject: We are seeking creative and perceptive professionals Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:50:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 We are Looking for partners worldwide. The position is home-based. Our Company Head Office is located in UK with branches all over the world. We are looking for talented, honest, reliable representatives from different regions. The ideal candidate will be an intelligent person, someone who can work autonomously with a high degree of enthusiasm. Our Company offers a very competitive salary to the successful candidate, along with an unrivalled career progression opportunity. If you would like to work with our active, dynamic team, we invite you to apply for employment. Preference will be given to applicants with knowledge of multiple languages. Please send the following information to KevenMcmahonGO@gmail.com. 1. Full name 2 Address of residence 3 Contact Phone numbers 4 Languages spoken 5 Whether you are interested in part time job or full time employment. Thank you. We look forward to working with you. If you received this message in error, please send a blank email to: DerekFloresPU@gmail.com. From french@nokia.com Fri Dec 07 08:38:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0dPp-0006gu-H0 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:38:53 -0500 Received: from [201.2.2.155] (helo=201.2.2.155) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0dPo-0003i2-P8 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:38:53 -0500 Received: from [201.2.2.155] by mx2.nokia.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:38:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c838d6$047c3053$23aca69c@mkwhxjwv> From: "jerrome hiroo" To: Subject: Representative needed Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:51:25 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 We are Looking for partners worldwide. The position is home-based. Our Company Head Office is located in UK with branches all over the world. We are looking for talented, honest, reliable representatives from different regions. The ideal candidate will be an intelligent person, someone who can work autonomously with a high degree of enthusiasm. Our Company offers a very competitive salary to the successful candidate, along with an unrivalled career progression opportunity. If you would like to work with our active, dynamic team, we invite you to apply for employment. Preference will be given to applicants with knowledge of multiple languages. Please send the following information to DirkObrienWU@gmail.com. 1. Full name 2 Address of residence 3 Contact Phone numbers 4 Languages spoken 5 Whether you are interested in part time job or full time employment. Thank you. We look forward to working with you. If you received this message in error, please send a blank email to: OdisShafferMX@gmail.com. From MaribelcollinsBrowne@fridaynightdance.org Fri Dec 07 12:27:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gzJ-0003Yb-Hs; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:27:45 -0500 Received: from [72.46.244.68] (helo=supervisor03) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gzI-0002t3-UD; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:27:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host29520618.fridaynightdance.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id tB4ZMz5z64.965168.oxP.G8v.3839609271149 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:31:00 +0600 Message-ID: From: "Alisa Drummond" To: Subject: Hi Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:31:00 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_B35E6_01C838F6.F4E110C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_B35E6_01C838F6.F4E110C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_B35E6_01C838F6.F4E110C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_B35E6_01C838F6.F4E110C0-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 12:41:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hCh-0000Aq-O9 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:41:35 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hCf-0004sv-VU for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:41:35 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0h80-000Lss-Qm for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:36:44 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [213.172.48.142] (helo=consulintel.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0h7f-000LrC-Jr for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:36:34 +0000 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1197052391; x=1197657191; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=PQu8wDyoh3jyBt nn251T6TY8TAxsFSen4fVFTOstIdkuXSzkTngccLT3c2HUukjtnkQvyn1XxrX9Sp u5RPCX8O8WviTAhiWMtEThPpZf3NYlSihwOE02+wUWhJLE7qrD9eUYXB+hKlfGtp XEy4PhsxcsrXwz+1PWxMqPzcsBm9A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=HVGHD/nAj+FXRFfd9IVLWfhIDOU2bNk5HIgkJKuCoP3JUgvWjJv9VcQLSsAO8OjlBL9Vjg8h/D/1zC/Si8iRsGPNeMtTu3fcvVMVpPDl1d5sKPypgLHCCV1fulwq5HOcecJjybEE36c6/g9H5G8XnbA4AvCKtwGjOTRGeeVoVek=; Received: from [130.129.16.75] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002745648.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:33:10 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:36:08 -0800 Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg496Zo5QeYWKTqEdykyAANky3PwA== In-Reply-To: <4758C847.5030200@ca.afilias.info> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071207:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::F0pM3IuoXq+R28Ky:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000008L1x X-MDRemoteIP: 130.129.16.75 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:33:11 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a7d2e37451f7f22841e3b6f40c67db0f My experience on this is that if the content provider setup its own Teredo and 6to4 relays, then users will have no troubles. So again, no need to modify the IPv4 stack on that service provider network. Of course, there will be ALWAYS users with problems, but this is the corner case due to missconfiguration of the users network. For example, the network adminstrator decides to announce an IPv6 prefix with RA or DHCPv6, but has no IPv6 connectivity to outside. Then the hosts in that network will not try 6to4 or Teredo (because they believe they have already native IPv6 connectivity), and will fail. This kind of situations are unavoidable and not due to IPv6 or anything that we do, is just a problem of BAD networks administrators, not doing correctly their job :-( Same can happen with a bad IPv4 network configuration, even if IPv6 is not involved ! Regards, Jordi > De: Brian Dickson > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:12:55 -0800 > Para: > CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" > Asunto: Re: v4 side unmodifiable > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> I don't think is a good idea to modify IPv4. It is the same difficulty than >> having IPv6 in those boxes where the manufacturers aren't longer in the >> market, they have no spare memory, or whatever. >> >> And I believe is not good to make a difference between what is a server and >> a client from this perspective. May be need to look into concrete examples, >> but it is looking already for a solution too early ? >> >> > I think that, in order to ensure we find the solutions which can be > deployed (easily, quickly, cheaply, etc.), > we need to identify three things: > - what can be done (on an element-by-element basis) > - what the required elements of a specific solution involve > - what the specific corner cases are in the problem space. > > Here is an example of the problem space having a corner case: > If a content provider (who operates farms of servers, where the servers > are commodity, new, and open source), > wants to provide content to IPv6-only sites, there is a real problem. > > Even if the provider has IPv6 transit and a dual-stack infrastructure, > there is a problem. > > If the provider adds AAAA records, it can trigger a bad user experience > from unintended sources (e.g. toredo hosts). > These are not within the control of the content provider. The content > provider is limited to solutions within its control. > > So, that provider may actually *want* to have solutions from our > solution space as options, and is likely willing to make > changes on the v4 *server* host to accomplish this. > > It is an exception, of course, but a very important one for > consideration, as the uptake of IPv6 depends on content being available, > at no worse a quality of user experience as under IPv4 (for the same sites). > > Brian Dickson >> We should really focus in trying to make it in the hosts that are have an >> IPv6 stack. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> >> >> >>> De: Iljitsch van Beijnum >>> Responder a: >>> Fecha: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:31:54 -0800 >>> Para: IPv6 Operations >>> Asunto: v4 side unmodifiable >>> >>> Jari basically said this ^^ >>> >>> However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for >>> non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good >>> reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to >>> make them. >>> >>> > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 13:08:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hck-000423-HZ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:08:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hck-0006xu-7Y for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:08:30 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0hbH-000Pm7-9r for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [194.242.114.73] (helo=poy.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0hbE-000PlR-Cf for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:06:57 +0000 Received: from leon.remlab.net (unknown [207.236.117.226]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by poy.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D666E96820 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:06:52 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Organization: Remlab.net To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:06:29 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <4758C847.5030200@ca.afilias.info> In-Reply-To: <4758C847.5030200@ca.afilias.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712072006.29954.rdenis@simphalempin.com> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Le Friday 07 December 2007 06:12:55 Brian Dickson, vous avez =E9crit=A0: > If the provider adds AAAA records, it can trigger a bad user experience > from unintended sources (e.g. toredo hosts). I am fairly disturbed when even IETF IPv6 experts fail to recognize that th= is=20 (a Teredo or 6to4 host trying to connect to a native dual-stack host) does= =20 not happen, and is hence not an issue. Why do you think Source Address=20 selection was invented for? As it happens, I am not aware of any vendor with 6to4 and/or Teredo=20 on-by-default *without* proper Source Address Selection policy. As such, if= =20 you do put a "native" AAAA record in addition to an existing A record, only= =20 native IPv6 host will (try to) use IPv6 to connect to you. Indeed, from my personal experience as a "I eat my dog food" guy, there are= =20 many more problems establishing native-native IPv6 connections, than when=20 using automated transition mechanism. That is not to say that transition=20 mechanisms are reliable (which they are not). But the fact is that there ar= e=20 still a awful lot of (native) IPv6 routing issues, and that's one thing=20 Source Address Selection cannot and does not protect against. =2D-=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 13:15:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hjN-0000Bf-EO for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:15:21 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hjM-0007Qx-2g for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:15:21 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0hiO-0000k8-O1 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:14:20 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [194.242.114.73] (helo=poy.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0hiL-0000jA-Lc for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:14:18 +0000 Received: from leon.remlab.net (unknown [207.236.117.226]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by poy.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2E796822 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:14:15 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Organization: Remlab.net To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:14:03 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712072014.03898.rdenis@simphalempin.com> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Le Friday 07 December 2007 03:31:54 Iljitsch van Beijnum, vous avez =E9crit= =A0: > Jari basically said this ^^ > > However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for > non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good > reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to > make them. That would depend on your definition of "non-trivial". But I am afraid Jari= is=20 right - host still lacking an IPv6 stack are either not upgradeable, or not= =20 willing to be upgraded. As someone pointed out already, modifying even existing IPv6-capable host i= s=20 pretty difficult: it would be 15 years or so before the Windows more recent= =20 than Vista would have a fair share of the market, if it ever happens. Also worth considering is the self-realizing prophecy factor - if >80% of=20 IETFers think that a given IETF technology (say modifying IPv4 stacks to=20 support IPv6 transition) won't happen, how likely is it to be successful=20 anyway? :( =2D-=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 13:24:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hs7-0007QE-E4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:24:23 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hs6-00083V-Pm for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:24:23 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0hq6-0001q3-Qg for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:22:18 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [213.172.48.142] (helo=consulintel.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0hpe-0001n9-PQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:22:06 +0000 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1197055120; x=1197659920; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=NQ14/L/VunG1dw 7Ca/RsBwXe10uvuoWYQy0AOLZAqgbe29he+sevNcs4+PrP44LwMWUXu9og7VG49E KEIoTQEGexulYsCxUukE5049G0FXiE8H11f+0IJvm6fUPY1Nf2LOcEkJoGJMnQ0o tPSTp+ZUq4psu648tVJsc8IWqwTgU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=Y/uWDDl6LINO1b7q1unhxkLSrnO3lv/Jp8oU1BHbf8wBJ9EnpTqv7brZb8UEODWO8KYeEG35DTDeamQChtKphF4kyaEqCWYH7JjXt1AmOU8AqlaobizIQXcVxuxjSzUKe54MCopcj+gCH1OwXxriHK7jtgpwt93KcmYcOfkzJ4c=; Received: from [130.129.16.75] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002745694.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:18:38 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:21:40 -0800 Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg4/gLOQV62CqTxEdykyAANky3PwA== In-Reply-To: <200712072006.29954.rdenis@simphalempin.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071207:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::807gBrk3e1frke6z:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000003/nq X-MDRemoteIP: 130.129.16.75 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:18:40 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Yes, but software may decide not to use the source address selection policy of the OS. For example, if I recall correctly, Opera uses IPv6 even with Teredo to connect to IPv6 sites, while IE follows the policy table and prefers to use IPv4 if only Teredo is available. Regards, Jordi > De: R=E9mi Denis-Courmont > Organizaci=F3n: Remlab.net > Responder a: > Fecha: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:06:29 +0200 > Para: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" > Asunto: Re: v4 side unmodifiable >=20 > Le Friday 07 December 2007 06:12:55 Brian Dickson, vous avez =E9crit=A0: >> If the provider adds AAAA records, it can trigger a bad user experience >> from unintended sources (e.g. toredo hosts). >=20 > I am fairly disturbed when even IETF IPv6 experts fail to recognize that this > (a Teredo or 6to4 host trying to connect to a native dual-stack host) does > not happen, and is hence not an issue. Why do you think Source Address > selection was invented for? >=20 > As it happens, I am not aware of any vendor with 6to4 and/or Teredo > on-by-default *without* proper Source Address Selection policy. As such, if > you do put a "native" AAAA record in addition to an existing A record, only > native IPv6 host will (try to) use IPv6 to connect to you. >=20 > Indeed, from my personal experience as a "I eat my dog food" guy, there are > many more problems establishing native-native IPv6 connections, than when > using automated transition mechanism. That is not to say that transition > mechanisms are reliable (which they are not). But the fact is that there are > still a awful lot of (native) IPv6 routing issues, and that's one thing > Source Address Selection cannot and does not protect against. >=20 > --=20 > R=E9mi Denis-Courmont >=20 ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 13:50:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iHa-0006dt-8A for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:50:42 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iHY-0001uB-Q1 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:50:42 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0iEy-0004ro-Gy for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:48:00 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [213.172.48.142] (helo=consulintel.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0iEd-0004oS-Pz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:47:50 +0000 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1197056667; x=1197661467; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=fntFWiLHU2Cdi9 lTt3xXaEdXfGaescwyPiys5PxnIEiJGPwoJ3GYHSz3pFOr9+a1ueZ+48D/NW0Dad mb9x8uo475IchGKaZjGVSxdaZ7rzFeV9v2xwe0Xr/19E7PHmhfVBI+vZ32Hgf8Ky GduScOW7/vsjx0cz4sqkWX/HA8TlU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=ge/7HbBuCjA51mgjnmybutRBLtCUCfH6C4r+DjfDHiRFwsQiQS6MW7IsxF6DzGy/t1icTIl1l7ym6mBgqHhOWfPgAuMvljW87i7Pn0Siu1BrzVGc3DyjxTNCJxO+pkf9XcsJ4EHBlSV9Wt4BSt0sYS2m3/w/tne1hP6/EsfXTyg=; Received: from [130.129.16.75] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002745711.msg for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:44:25 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:47:12 -0800 Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Translation versus tunneling document Thread-Index: Acg5AZPz0pvDOKT0EdykyAANky3PwA== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071207:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::VNsyvKMsi58kiKIL:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Goe X-MDRemoteIP: 130.129.16.75 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:44:27 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Good point. Will take care of that as well. Regards, Jordi > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:36:11 -0800 > Para: > CC: > Asunto: Re: Translation versus tunneling document > > On 6 dec 2007, at 17:44, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> I've talked with Fred after the v6ops WG meeting this afternoon, and >> I will >> work in a document comparing the applicability of existing tunneling >> protocols and a possible translation mechanism in different scenarios. > > Would it be possible to evaluate deployment issues, i.e., whether said > mechanism is already available today in hosts, and if it isn't, > whether it can easily be implemented in a modular way so it can be > added by others than the OS vendor? > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 14:27:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0irP-0006f9-8T for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:27:43 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0irO-0004Np-VA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:27:43 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0ipc-0009DV-VG for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:25:52 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0ipa-0009D2-7Y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:25:51 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB7JPesP003694; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:25:41 -0600 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 13:25:40 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:25:39 -0500 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B1B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg4emMboenBzKRtEdykyAANky3PwAAjC0mw References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> From: "Suresh Krishnan" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2007 19:25:40.0473 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3E83E90:01C83906] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hi Iljitsch, I think I have the same opinion as Jari for two reasons * Any node that does not have a v6 implementation today probably does not want one. So any v4 based changes will not be delployed * Why would a v4 host that has no pain currently try to change itself to talk to a v6 host (who has the pain). The pain should be where the gain is. Cheers Suresh > De: Iljitsch van Beijnum Responder a:=20 > > Fecha: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 17:31:54 -0800 > Para: IPv6 Operations > Asunto: v4 side unmodifiable >=20 > Jari basically said this ^^ >=20 > However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for=20 > non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good=20 > reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to=20 > make them. >=20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 14:30:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iuR-0006Vv-L5 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:30:51 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iuR-0004Uo-4e for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:30:51 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0itX-0009ev-5x for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:29:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [130.76.64.48] (helo=slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0it6-0009bF-0d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:29:39 +0000 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [192.42.227.216]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id lB7JSdSl022455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:28:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id lB7JSd2t022995; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id lB7JSc6O022956; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:28:36 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Translation versus tunneling document Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:28:36 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDCCF@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Translation versus tunneling document Thread-Index: Acg4csMOAXEGiqRmEdykyAANky3PwAAk8DTQ References: From: "Templin, Fred L" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2007 19:28:36.0683 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CEFC1B0:01C83907] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Jordi, A small comment on the subject line is that it may not be an exclusive "either/or" for translation vs. tunneling but rather "both/and". IMHO, translators belong at the edges of IPv6 only-sites, but those "sites" may be deeply embedded within dual-stacked sites. Recursively-nested sites within sites are an attractive deployment scenario for some use cases, and they are well-supported by ISATAP. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es]=20 > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:45 PM > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Translation versus tunneling document >=20 > I've talked with Fred after the v6ops WG meeting this=20 > afternoon, and I will > work in a document comparing the applicability of existing tunneling > protocols and a possible translation mechanism in different scenarios. >=20 > I think this will be useful to determine if we really need=20 > the translation > mechanism for all the cases or just for a small subset,=20 > making easier the > development of that translation protocol. >=20 > I will try to get this done in the next couple of weeks, at=20 > least a first > draft. If some other people is interested in working on this,=20 > please let me > know. >=20 > Regards, > Jordi >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org >=20 > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org >=20 > This electronic message contains information which may be=20 > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be=20 > for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not=20 > the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,=20 > distribution or use of the contents of this information,=20 > including attached files, is prohibited. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From TedpropagandistGarza@a340.net Fri Dec 07 17:35:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ln8-0007sq-Al for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:35:30 -0500 Received: from [190.48.211.15] (helo=estefania) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ln5-0002JO-6j for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:35:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host54429468.a340.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 6glY1AsE67.409068.EAZ.2kZ.2732350386168 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:36:36 -0100 Message-ID: <6188f01c839c9$75c602e0$4800a8c0@estefania> From: "Roland Little" To: Subject: Your family Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:36:36 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_6188B_01C839C9.75C602E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_6188B_01C839C9.75C602E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_6188B_01C839C9.75C602E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_6188B_01C839C9.75C602E0-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 07 19:41:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nl3-0007Nb-RP for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:41:29 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nl2-0001Gi-Cy for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:41:29 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0ng6-000Hl9-Cg for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:36:22 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.12.29.58] (helo=mint.apnic.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0nfx-000HkP-0F for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:36:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.98] (m221.yvr.ca [204.239.248.221]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mint.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4885D5F33; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:36:02 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4759E76E.2050301@apnic.net> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:38:06 +1100 From: Geoff Huston User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralph Droms Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6<->IPv4 address translation is not NAT? References: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Ralph Droms wrote: > Geoff - in the v6ops meeting you said that the IPv6 transition problem > is not a NAT problem. Can you explain in more detail? There must be, I > think. a translation between addresses from incompatible address spaces, > just like NATv4. What do you think is the difference? The point I was trying to make is that NATs are not "just" Network Address Translators - they are in fact used for a particular style of Network address translation which is asymmetric. We all know how a NAT is defined - it has an "inside" and an "outside" and packets from the "inside" that are heading to the "outside have one set of transforms applied to the IP source field and packets in tyhe opposite direction have a comparable set of transforms applied to the IP destination field. So we have assumptions of "inside" and "outside", and only one part of the header is touched, etc etc. The point I was making at the microphone in the WG was that the V4 / V6 translation problem shares very little with the asymmetric NATS that we know as "NAT" as this protocol transform is an entirely different form of address translation which has different triggers, semantics and states. And I was trying to say that calling them both "NATS" is uncomfortable for me. Now is that clearer or muddier? Geoff From RosariodeKidd@perezhilton.com Fri Dec 07 23:40:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rUY-0003Mg-Aq; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:40:42 -0500 Received: from cpe-74-74-190-4.rochester.res.rr.com ([74.74.190.4] helo=kathyk.rochester.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rUY-0006PA-2N; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:40:42 -0500 Received: from wild by perezhilton.com with SMTP id CrsVmr3Ozq for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 23:40:27 +0500 From: "Bud Mccray" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0vIR-0006mt-O9 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:44:27 -0500 Received: from cable-89-216-141-2.dynamic.sbb.co.yu ([89.216.141.2]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0vIM-00010j-Au for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:44:27 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c83976$0619018b$1b98d496@alkwclp> From: "hubey chen" To: Subject: $2400 bonus Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:56:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83976.0613C682" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83976.0613C682 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable •Quickest payouts• •Totally safe• Golden Gate •Fair gamming• •24/7 support• =20 •CASINO• =20 $2400 FREEwellcome BONUS $2400 =20   Black jack     Slots     Rouletie     Video poker     Craps   =20 Click Here ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83976.0613C682 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
•Quickest = payouts•
•Totally = safe•
 Golden Gate •Fair = gamming•
•24/7 = support•

•CASINO•

$2400
FREEwellcome BONUS
$2400
 
Black jack
  		 
Slots
 		  
Rouletie
 		  
Video poker
  		 
Craps
 

Click Here

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83976.0613C682-- From pholive@dogomania.com Sat Dec 08 04:12:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0vjx-0006ef-Uv for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:12:53 -0500 Received: from [189.60.36.9] (helo=bd3c2409.virtua.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0vjw-0002gm-HH for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:12:53 -0500 Received: from estacao88 [167.123.94.232] (port=17575 helo=estacao88) by 9243cbddogomania.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with SMTP id 35565332100D1 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 07:12:54 -0300 Message-ID: <001b01c83969$c08a0840$0692e114@estacao88> From: Brett To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: go voltage Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 07:12:54 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83969.C08A0840" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2962 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.0000 X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83969.C08A0840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable furthering the acceptance of a paperless environment. With that I get on to something else before I clearly and neatly computer networks such as MediaMoo or other MUDs facilitating ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83969.C08A0840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

products, or real estate. They would not find it useful to

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 757,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 21%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

things I had not imagined possible before. I don't suppose Adrian ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83969.C08A0840-- From bonillagangism9104480@gmail.com Sat Dec 08 08:09:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0zRB-0002WE-SX; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:45 -0500 Received: from c52-31.icpnet.pl ([62.21.52.31]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0zRA-0007OS-U1; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:45 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 92.244.132.214 by smtp.62.21.52.31; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Barbara Fry" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Barbara Fry" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Confirm ch0pard 0rder 96869 Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:39 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Hello, We have brand new model of r0lex submariner SS from 2008 for only $229. 15% off only in November. V1sit us n0w at: http://www.spoeiike.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 08 09:27:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J10eB-0001kW-8Y for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:27:15 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J10eA-0005Ud-SC for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:27:15 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J10XS-000Ik9-G1 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:20:18 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J10XP-000Ijg-NJ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:20:17 +0000 Received: from nirrti.muada.com (nirrti.muada.com [82.192.90.28]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lB8EJwt1007573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:20:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <4739FCE5-2C63-4FFE-B456-D7ECF4F5221C@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= In-Reply-To: <200712072014.03898.rdenis@simphalempin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:10:33 -0800 References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> <200712072014.03898.rdenis@simphalempin.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab On 7 dec 2007, at 10:14, R=E9mi Denis-Courmont wrote: >> However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think for >> non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a good >> reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be possible to >> make them. > That would depend on your definition of "non-trivial". But I am =20 > afraid Jari is > right - host still lacking an IPv6 stack are either not upgradeable, =20= > or not > willing to be upgraded. The case I'm thinking about is a service that is somewhere up there in =20= the top 10000 destinations on the web. That's big enough to make =20 deploying IPv6 non-trivial (especially now that Vista boxes enable =20 6to4 when they have a public address even if protocol 41 is filtered =20 so they can't reach destinations with a AAAA record) but the operators =20= of such a service would presumably be willing to install reasonable =20 updates if that buys them something useful. I think we really should start considering a transition phase where =20 the clients may run IPv6 but the servers largely don't. (I know, home =20= users can also run servers, peer-to-peer, all that good crap.) > As someone pointed out already, modifying even existing IPv6-capable =20= > host is > pretty difficult: it would be 15 years or so before the Windows more =20= > recent > than Vista would have a fair share of the market, if it ever happens. Hm, pre-XP windows is quickly disappearing and both XP and Vista =20 should be considered updatable if Microsoft chooses to do so. So in =20 another few years the main class of unupgradable IPv4 hosts will be =20 special purpose devices rather than computers running a general =20 purpose operating system. But obviously updatable in principle doesn't =20= mean it will happen on 100% of all boxes. > Also worth considering is the self-realizing prophecy factor - if =20 > >80% of > IETFers think that a given IETF technology (say modifying IPv4 =20 > stacks to > support IPv6 transition) won't happen, how likely is it to be =20 > successful > anyway? :( After wednesday's plenary? Highly likely. :-) Note that I wasn't talking about upgrading ALL IPv4 hosts, I was just =20= saying that SOME classes of IPv4 hosts can very likely be upgraded.= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 08 10:01:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11B0-0001Wv-NF for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:01:10 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J11Az-0006Dg-Ud for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:01:10 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J118p-000Mek-77 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:58:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J118S-000MZr-Qx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:58:43 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2007 06:58:32 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB8EwWHk010546; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:58:32 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB8EwR87001040; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:58:32 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:58:27 -0800 Received: from [192.168.102.55] ([10.21.88.246]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:58:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3BC15274-F531-42FE-9F23-32340793A8DE@cisco.com> Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 06:58:15 -0800 To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2007 14:58:27.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9FF8990:01C839AA] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2063; t=1197125912; x=1197989912; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Translation=20versus=20tunneling=20document |Sender:=20; bh=xIvyLVIp8DVPcSbjaD4XxGo9iRUA/WJj3y1Oy7Un4Pk=; b=NNOs6i9+kBsZIdL5Ap+rxU/hlDVQVZm02FFVIqcg2RtAmoO9LdT9nA56mxDPt9/0N/RINDlS +4LftT9ogwbp3kcc03BDYqaNsrKiix+HjFs73qXkkqIW2M9Uow3x80vg; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Do us a favor; talk with Alain about his network to make sure that you are solving the problem he is facing. The big question is whether the double translation he proposes comes up with functionally the same thing as the tunneled packet, and what the tunnel goes between. The double translation is probably easier to maintain operationally than an NxM set of tunnels if it works correctly, and avoids the MTU discussion. Frankly, a massively tunneled network is a lot like an MPLS network, and in MPLS there are a set of tools for managing the network. Be careful what you ask for; you might get it. On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:44 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I've talked with Fred after the v6ops WG meeting this afternoon, > and I will > work in a document comparing the applicability of existing tunneling > protocols and a possible translation mechanism in different scenarios. > > I think this will be useful to determine if we really need the > translation > mechanism for all the cases or just for a small subset, making > easier the > development of that translation protocol. > > I will try to get this done in the next couple of weeks, at least a > first > draft. If some other people is interested in working on this, > please let me > know. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for > the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information, including > attached files, is prohibited. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHWrEIbjEdbHIsm0MRArJSAKDFo42gJPvSaR/3J49KI0JW7Ih+0gCghESU KwUfaH7yXmiqZNJq7xXsJwg= =/1tZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From KennyinternLeonard@pulitzer.org Sat Dec 08 11:01:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J127T-0005P8-UV; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:01:35 -0500 Received: from host86-148-198-177.range86-148.btcentralplus.com ([86.148.198.177] helo=yourb77bfafe16) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J127T-0003AH-Ib; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:01:35 -0500 Received: from nj by pulitzer.org with SMTP id 5OEHmmBWIa for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:01:23 +0000 From: "Kenny Sharp" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1443-00077p-0F for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:06:11 -0500 Received: from [87.118.171.96] (helo=shukri) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1442-0006Dh-IB for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:06:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host03124393.boston.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id A51bOiFk81.865773.lbT.7Gf.1165242012003 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:05:16 -0200 Message-ID: <512001c839c5$0338e520$3f72a8c0@shukri> From: "Agustin Contreras" To: Subject: Your health Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:05:16 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_511C_01C839C5.0338E520" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_511C_01C839C5.0338E520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_511C_01C839C5.0338E520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_511C_01C839C5.0338E520-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 08 14:16:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J159c-0007RN-Rt for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:16:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J159b-0003MG-Eu for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:16:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J154A-0000xI-UK for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:10:22 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [192.100.122.233] (helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1542-0000wP-7M for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:10:20 +0000 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id lB8JA3sS005006; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:10:04 +0200 Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:10:03 +0200 Received: from mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.96]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:10:02 +0200 Received: from [10.0.1.199] (daec-linuxvpn059121.americas.nokia.com [10.241.59.121]) by mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id lB8J9raQ027753; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:10:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5B3E18D2-4DB9-498C-977D-8B1A37D427B0@nokia.com> Cc: IPv6 Operations Reply-To: bob.hinden@nokia.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bob Hinden Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:10:14 -0800 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2007 19:10:02.0813 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF6E6ED0:01C839CD] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Iljitsch, > Jari basically said this ^^ > > However, although I agree it's true in the general case, I think > for non-trivial servers/services, this isn't true: if there is a > good reason to make changes on the IPv4-only side, it may be > possible to make them. To clarify, I think it should be "the IPv4 stack in an IPv4 only host is unmodifiable". I would would think that small modifications to the IPv4 side of a dual stack host is possible and have likely happened already. This would be inline with your observation about dual stack servers. Bob From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 08 14:24:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15ID-0001f5-3j for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:24:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15IC-0003Yt-LI for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:24:53 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J15HL-0002X8-6O for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:23:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.146.181] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J15HI-0002Wm-Jq for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:23:57 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so2249999wah for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:23:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+46WeK98D7tn6MQYopOuJmxByEUa308NnLfmbXVrLJ8=; b=fUas9AAcV3Oyb9ZizKo2hhdWTU3MCpFSujC/cImCv7o3SzKR0wEGaaq8/BZGW3oe47riVAUWHOCMTCEFHpdzLRb1L2cHbwH9dKkyaizKFJfaiNlthr9lnAbRmJzXUTwgJngriEvwEHIPHT8vWeJyFLBnCZeOLLL9l6ZRd42FA7g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qfHfvdaDT1BGJUntEFMvwo5SAydh2QZ3RypsQL6oSgZcsual0iJwitoO+7bsgVaEaGsq8yNiM4NKY4D0PQRvF67oc54ebbdBMlC4/osuKds/aOxnIT/2DQGp0Kyg/pkwShOuznmIyVZDisVWuu+qGBmqpZsqt7pZkMCHutW0GyA= Received: by 10.115.106.7 with SMTP id i7mr5316655wam.1197141831906; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.109.190.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k37sm1888203waf.2007.12.08.11.23.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475AEF3E.4070201@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:23:42 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geoff Huston CC: Ralph Droms , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6<->IPv4 address translation is not NAT? References: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> <4759E76E.2050301@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: <4759E76E.2050301@apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b On 2007-12-08 13:38, Geoff Huston wrote: > > Ralph Droms wrote: >> Geoff - in the v6ops meeting you said that the IPv6 transition problem >> is not a NAT problem. Can you explain in more detail? There must be, >> I think. a translation between addresses from incompatible address >> spaces, just like NATv4. What do you think is the difference? > > > The point I was trying to make is that NATs are not "just" Network > Address Translators - they are in fact used for a particular style of > Network address translation which is asymmetric. We all know how a NAT > is defined - it has an "inside" and an "outside" and packets from the > "inside" that are heading to the "outside have one set of transforms > applied to the IP source field and packets in tyhe opposite direction > have a comparable set of transforms applied to the IP destination field. > > So we have assumptions of "inside" and "outside", and only one part of > the header is touched, etc etc. > > The point I was making at the microphone in the WG was that the V4 / V6 > translation problem shares very little with the asymmetric NATS that we > know as "NAT" as this protocol transform is an entirely different form > of address translation which has different triggers, semantics and > states. And I was trying to say that calling them both "NATS" is > uncomfortable for me. > > Now is that clearer or muddier? I think an important point of commonality is that when translating between a smaller and a larger address space, you're forced to deal with port mapping as well as with address translation. That is the same problem whether the smaller/larger pair is single-IPv4/RFC1918 or IPv4/IPv6. Maybe we should talk about address sharing rather than address translation? Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 08 14:37:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15U6-0008BU-Me for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:37:10 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15U6-0003wf-Cs for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:37:10 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J15Rg-0003oL-Um for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:34:40 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.146.182] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J15Re-0003nz-KQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:34:39 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so2254451wah for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:34:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2CDr/eOLhMlnOPYtprZJ2DMPKoCt1zzTmaC8ZwwXeGM=; b=SZiyUPX9kJ0GSU9OAXn1+Kyh85x+rCA3dHMTmn16k6CsojQSWrh/rYXEPiIXNflGBtryUS/RZ/f5eAQ8uNFi8Z+bXNyF9eA7E4oTBpMit83GmHvwzQ2szXNZ0jYDYEHjHnQxXHPHMfXuqx5KS4OZhBlBpNMe1VwcB7lMSR3HLb4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xzcSZ7LqTwB4sqaeg6liZANSyljz2yG63ykN3VEzKpBS0m7BWdtPHgX0JrWv0sVdUHhgU2trbaKaapAr0H75/N12Dv1Lejb5KBjN/TIeTzff/0EZ016EdQRzf6jHS5I/39WZ5ukQT/iOjF+ZDAEb3delZM7SfSurrqEhlVsYyOE= Received: by 10.114.153.18 with SMTP id a18mr4867001wae.1197142476504; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:34:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.109.190.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j29sm2492116waf.2007.12.08.11.34.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:34:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:34:20 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 On 2007-12-07 15:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 6 dec 2007, at 17:44, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> I've talked with Fred after the v6ops WG meeting this afternoon, and I >> will >> work in a document comparing the applicability of existing tunneling >> protocols and a possible translation mechanism in different scenarios. > > Would it be possible to evaluate deployment issues, i.e., whether said > mechanism is already available today in hosts, and if it isn't, whether > it can easily be implemented in a modular way so it can be added by > others than the OS vendor? I think you also have to consider whether there's something to tunnel *to* - is there a significantly large class of dual stack services that will be able to make use of tunnels? And don't forget the third class of solution: application level proxies. Would you advise the operator of a large IPv4-only web site to a) dual-stack the whole site b) install a dual-stack proxy for IPv6 clients c) install a layer 3 translator for IPv6 clients? Brian From LeonelschuylerBenton@yahoo.com Sat Dec 08 14:40:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15XF-0003Rs-FM; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:40:25 -0500 Received: from cpe-24-198-27-87.buffalo.res.rr.com ([24.198.27.87] helo=s1099810152.buffalo.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15XF-0008PX-71; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:40:25 -0500 Received: from amplitude by yahoo.com with SMTP id LctJsVy0VX for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:40:22 +0500 From: "Buford Mejia" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15lB-0006vj-Qb for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:54:49 -0500 Received: from ntl208h101-108-120.nt.net ([208.101.108.120] helo=youra805fabffc.dsl.nt.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15lB-0000EF-9T for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:54:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host39174503.johnstonsc.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id ADiksbUn47.073866.pu1.WPm.8944864798835 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:54:05 +0500 Message-ID: From: "Lincoln Rollins" To: Subject: Hi Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:54:05 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_A155E_01C839D4.303E7A30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_A155E_01C839D4.303E7A30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_A155E_01C839D4.303E7A30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_A155E_01C839D4.303E7A30-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 08 15:55:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J16hk-0000f8-4I for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:55:20 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J16hj-0005dV-Rb for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:55:20 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J16e1-000D2m-Tc for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:51:29 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [131.107.115.214] (helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J16dz-000D2T-Oi for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:51:28 +0000 Received: from tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.114) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.222.3; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:51:26 -0800 Received: from tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.70.16) by tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.56.116.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.222.3; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:51:26 -0800 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.198]) by tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::200:5efe:157.54.70.16%15]) with mapi; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:51:26 -0800 From: Christian Huitema To: Iljitsch van Beijnum , =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= CC: IPv6 Operations Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:51:23 -0800 Subject: RE: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg5p3ygnVGjtURmRou9Z+pv7arKNgANAwUw Message-ID: References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> <200712072014.03898.rdenis@simphalempin.com> <4739FCE5-2C63-4FFE-B456-D7ECF4F5221C@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <4739FCE5-2C63-4FFE-B456-D7ECF4F5221C@muada.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c > The case I'm thinking about is a service that is somewhere up there in > the top 10000 destinations on the web. Why are we worried about that? The top 10000 destinations are typically loc= ated in big server farms, with a rich set of equipment. If there appears to= be a sizeable IPv6 development, these 10000 top sites will become someone'= s business opportunity. There may be some form of conversion going on, but = most likely it will be located somewhere in the server farm, e.g. some upgr= aded version of the current load balancers and firewalls. -- Christian Huitema From awlcontents@kwccpa.com Sat Dec 08 18:38:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J19Fy-0008H7-UJ for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:38:50 -0500 Received: from [201.21.215.208] (helo=faro.poa.virtua.com.br) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J19Fx-0000yd-35 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:38:50 -0500 Received: from faro [219.43.188.2] (port=38321 helo=faro) by d0d715c9kwccpa.com with ESMTP id 2703976924E2 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:38:46 -0300 Message-ID: <001901c839e2$b6917fc0$00f8c8e4@faro> From: Freddy Q. Neely To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: the subject Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:38:46 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C839E2.B6917FC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.1081 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.2969 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C839E2.B6917FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable computer graphics and special effects. Currently having used a substantial market. This would most definitely be a competitive twentieth century easier and more convenient than ever before. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C839E2.B6917FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

been the next best thing I suppose, but it is a far cry from the

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 729,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 23%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

their own space when it can be absolutely any space at all. You
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C839E2.B6917FC0-- From Nyffeler@plasthermo.com.mx Sat Dec 08 18:57:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J19Xi-0005vY-5z for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:57:10 -0500 Received: from host-65-124-88-11.entouch.net ([65.124.88.11]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J19Xh-0006SA-Q7 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:57:10 -0500 Received: by 10.163.29.190 with SMTP id xMVkUupukYQDj; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:57:19 -0600 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.178.183 with SMTP id AELsiNmpUxtdiB.2293570630547; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:57:17 -0600 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:57:14 -0600 From: "Doc Nyffeler" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ngparent Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 she might stay with you if your dick gets bigger http://www.icasthd.com/ From SavannahfluoresceinColey@premier-bathrooms.com Sun Dec 09 00:15:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1EVc-0001Yz-8n for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:15:20 -0500 Received: from [149.125.192.66] (helo=reginawr.pods.bu.int) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1EVb-0005Jt-Su for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:15:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host18095000.premier-bathrooms.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Z6Kofm4j89.390166.pD2.fDw.8380896000328 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:14:29 +0500 Message-ID: <3b703801c83a22$7adfb740$42c07d95@reginawr> From: "Liliana Hawk" To: Subject: Your order Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:14:29 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_3B7034_01C83A22.7ADFB740" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_3B7034_01C83A22.7ADFB740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_3B7034_01C83A22.7ADFB740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_3B7034_01C83A22.7ADFB740-- From orychockazyxv@xmdongshun.com Sun Dec 09 02:00:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1G97-00040t-La for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:00:13 -0500 Received: from host236-110-dynamic.7-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.7.110.236]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1G97-0007Ic-3C for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:00:13 -0500 Received: from efew by xmdongshun.com with ASMTP id 504F4314 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:00:41 +0100 Received: from efew ([121.172.61.17]) by xmdongshun.com with ESMTP id 7E6C3B1EE11F for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:00:41 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:00:12 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "maja orychock" Subject: doniassa Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 touch her tonsils when she sucks your dick deep throat http://www.ipixads.com/ From bouyge903@xmdongshun.com Sun Dec 09 02:00:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1G9K-00041C-7Y for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:00:26 -0500 Received: from host236-110-dynamic.7-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.7.110.236]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1G9J-0007Im-KC for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:00:26 -0500 Received: by 10.54.114.189 with SMTP id VIBtRHFmyGQiM; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:00:30 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.220.0 with SMTP id kjVlrsdUBPSTHZ.5146430930456; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:00:28 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <85B51D55.1B9D25AF@xmdongshun.com> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:00:25 +0100 From: "bouyge Merisaari" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: dnerprus Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060801030602040103030802" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------060801030602040103030802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit yes it gets big, yes it gets strong, yes you can do it http://inveryia.com/ --------------060801030602040103030802 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit yes it gets big, yes it gets strong, yes you can do it http://inveryia.com/
--------------060801030602040103030802-- From HoracebanquetAguilar@washingtonpost.com Sun Dec 09 03:57:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1HyZ-00038g-HT; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:57:27 -0500 Received: from 67-41-215-145.hlrn.qwest.net ([67.41.215.145] helo=lauren.domain.actdsltmp) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1HyZ-0001Ts-7w; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:57:27 -0500 Received: from courageous by washingtonpost.com with SMTP id IFWzkFJL0e for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:57:28 +0700 From: "Rickey Burgess" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1MGI-0008E0-Mo for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:32:02 -0500 Received: from 82-45-9-193.cable.ubr02.stav.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.45.9.193]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1MGI-0005V4-57 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:32:02 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c83a67$05b81e08$d3c3fd83@sfpksqt> From: "lazare khoon-sa" To: Subject: Play the Best Games Online Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:44:33 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83A67.05B4BEE1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83A67.05B4BEE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable •Quickest payouts• •Totally safe• Golden Gate •Fair gamming• •24/7 support• =20 •CASINO• =20 $2400 FREEwellcome BONUS $2400 =20   Black jack     Slots     Rouletie     Video poker     Craps   =20 Click Here ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83A67.05B4BEE1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
•Quickest = payouts•
•Totally = safe•
 Golden Gate •Fair = gamming•
•24/7 = support•

•CASINO•

$2400
FREEwellcome BONUS
$2400
 
Black jack
  		 
Slots
 		  
Rouletie
 		  
Video poker
  		 
Craps
 

Click Here

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83A67.05B4BEE1-- From su4@galileo.com Sun Dec 09 10:31:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1O7m-0004KL-SM for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:31:22 -0500 Received: from [199.227.68.2] (helo=199.227.68.2) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1O7m-0000xy-EY for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:31:22 -0500 Received: from [199.227.68.2] by cmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:31:10 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c83a78$0337d81c$9648918d@wsulmelt> From: "edgard hobbes" To: Subject: /iagr@ at $1.41 Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:43:48 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83A78.03377929" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83A78.03377929 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What happens if I overdose? Viagra $1,41 per pill. 100mg x 10 pills =3D $59.95. only for 1,39 per = p1ll ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83A78.03377929 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What happens if I overdose?

Viagra $1,41 per pill. = 100mg x 10 pills =3D $59.95. only for 1,39 per p1ll

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83A78.03377929-- From lala834@cateringdelbosque.com Sun Dec 09 11:22:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Ovi-0000KZ-UB for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:22:58 -0500 Received: from f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.57.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Ovh-0002RR-AS for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:22:58 -0500 Received: from fischfro-0sotg4 by cateringdelbosque.com with ASMTP id D0ECBFCA for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:23:02 +0100 Received: from fischfro-0sotg4 ([131.169.159.69]) by cateringdelbosque.com with ESMTP id 4258DBFA4E1A for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:23:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:22:41 +0100 From: "lala haggins" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: adlyde Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed she will love a massive meat in her back door! http://www.ipiloxa.com/
From Dominic551@cateringdelbosque.com Sun Dec 09 11:24:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Owl-0000og-VR for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:24:03 -0500 Received: from f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.57.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Owj-0002Sa-0k for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:24:03 -0500 Received: from fischfro-0sotg4 ([152.106.92.121]:25064 "EHLO fischfro-0sotg4" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de with ESMTP id S22QJFDCWGVLXVTB (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:24:04 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:23:43 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "Dominic Gipson" Subject: adettiin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 ever had a deep throat? take penis pills and you might find out http://ijrnd.com/ From Tiagohabbershaw@cateringdelbosque.com Sun Dec 09 11:30:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1P2t-0006lK-Oc for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:30:23 -0500 Received: from f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.53.57.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1P2j-0002dA-BW for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:30:23 -0500 Received: from fischfro-0sotg4 ([108.120.105.109]:13334 "EHLO fischfro-0sotg4" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de with ESMTP id S22VKVLWNADWAFUJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:30:08 +0100 Message-ID: <2B5A774B.6AD0BA76@cateringdelbosque.com> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:29:50 +0100 From: "Tiago habbershaw" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: aenpana Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed touch her tonsils when she sucks your dick deep throat http://www.illtuft.com/
From DOBBINSqliik@cadysonline.com Sun Dec 09 11:44:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1PGc-00041N-US for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:44:34 -0500 Received: from [92.228.49.146] (helo=f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1PGa-0002zP-0M for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:44:34 -0500 Received: by 10.23.196.211 with SMTP id GEHUPBwifEckz; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:44:18 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.176.225 with SMTP id ZGHbLNSGKnxFXH.6620832117456; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:44:16 +0100 (GMT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:44:13 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "orion DOBBINS" Subject: aekatufa Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 she will love a massive meat in her back door! http://www.iloverus.com/ From Zlatko.Clift@bvn.com.au Sun Dec 09 11:50:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1PMl-0003lM-Cv for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:50:55 -0500 Received: from f050129247.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.50.129.247] helo=f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1PMg-00038m-9H for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:50:52 -0500 Received: from fischfro-0sotg4 ([172.180.42.175]:24558 "EHLO fischfro-0sotg4" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by f053057061.adsl.alicedsl.de with ESMTP id S22UUWGQMYUOVAEW (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:50:51 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:50:25 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "Zlatko Clift" Subject: adnubm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 give her a satisfying smile everytime you fuck http://www.idoscope.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 09 12:57:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1QPZ-0002Cf-0L for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:57:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1QPW-0004Fq-TR for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:57:52 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1QJ5-000I6T-52 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:51:11 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.12.29.58] (helo=mint.apnic.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1QJ2-000I5h-0Y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:51:09 +0000 Received: from [203.10.60.21] (dhcp21.potaroo.net [203.10.60.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mint.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E66D5F2D; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:51:01 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <475C2B88.9050804@apnic.net> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:53:12 +1100 From: Geoff Huston User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Ralph Droms , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6<->IPv4 address translation is not NAT? References: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> <4759E76E.2050301@apnic.net> <475AEF3E.4070201@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <475AEF3E.4070201@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > I think an important point of commonality is that when translating > between a smaller and a larger address space, you're forced to > deal with port mapping as well as with address translation. not "forced", surely. "Might elct to" is close to the truth. And the algorithmic embedding of A in B applies asymmetrically. > That is the same problem whether the smaller/larger pair > is single-IPv4/RFC1918 or IPv4/IPv6. > > Maybe we should talk about address sharing rather than address > translation? I don't agree. What is going on appears to be the "type" of translation. One approach preserves stateless capability in the network elements and all that is a consequence avoids the use of placing translation sate i the network elements, and "embeds" the translation into the packet so that a remote entity (or the same entity at a later time) can reverse the translation and recover the orginal intended context. Another approach attempts to place state into network elements and then all the packets within a context are treated in the same way. NAT bindings are a good example of this state. Analogy of the differences between approaches: Imagine that you are flying home from Vancouver and you have no short term memory (it happens :-)). What do you do when you get off the flight in Canberra and you have absolutely no memory that you left your car at the Airport in Row 13? But you knew when you parked your car a week ago that you would forget. Do you write down where you parked it and keep this mesage with you through your trip so that its at hand upon your return (option a). Or pin the message to the airport information board and hope that it will still be there upon your return (option b). The algorithmic embedding is one of these "packet-state" approaches where any network element could undo the operation given that the packet contains sufficient information to reverse the operation. That's a long way of saying that I don't agree that embedding is sharing! Embedding is another approach to translation :-) Geoff From Jason@wapflansing.org Sun Dec 09 13:31:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1QwX-000728-FF for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:31:57 -0500 Received: from c8d08a48.sts.virtua.com.br ([200.208.138.72]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1QwW-0006f1-Bg for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:31:56 -0500 Received: from FLAVIO ([138.103.56.187]:25128 "EHLO FLAVIO" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by c8d08a48.sts.virtua.com.br with ESMTP id S22OTHVWAESWLWJT (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:32:06 -0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:31:54 -0200 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "Jason Koponen" Subject: lauqretl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 she will love a massive meat in her back door! http://www.ipiloxa.com/ From LaFantonvz@wapflansing.org Sun Dec 09 13:32:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Qwn-0007CL-NS for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:32:13 -0500 Received: from c8d08a48.sts.virtua.com.br ([200.208.138.72]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Qwn-0006g1-3o for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 13:32:13 -0500 Received: from FLAVIO ([145.181.164.107] helo=FLAVIO) by c8d08a48.sts.virtua.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ZCvfz-000BLW-MV for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:32:41 -0200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:32:11 -0200 From: "livingstone LaFant" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: lbelkniw Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed yes it gets big, yes it gets strong, yes you can do it http://www.icmbd.com/
From Spoon@bezirksturnfest.de Sun Dec 09 14:54:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1SEf-0006yu-47 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:54:45 -0500 Received: from [211.228.5.149] (helo=[211.228.5.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1SEe-0001YR-5m for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:54:44 -0500 Received: from computer-9w8w7k ([138.199.172.9]:9185 "EHLO computer-9w8w7k" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [211.228.5.149] with ESMTP id S22YOUAFIBSUSXGA (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:55:02 +0900 Message-ID: <30B5A109.D9892605@bezirksturnfest.de> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:54:43 +0900 From: "Spoon Jeffrey" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ryouron Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed she'll be wet if she knows your packing a big sausage http://www.ipiloxa.com/
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 09 15:29:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1SmD-0001SF-4f for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:29:25 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1SmA-0001dt-Si for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:29:25 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Sgt-000BsD-F2 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:23:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.146.179] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Sgo-000Bro-8R for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:23:53 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so2886060wah for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:23:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MQXbYIvxUbDi2J1onZVNy+TdP27cMUGaWuN7Kqu4K5c=; b=inH/zk/9dF5BqJDqkk6B0d/1U+MEBwB2yhsApKB+J9PeEIU2hUdySFhEjZckS73oVeXF3s3dNg5UQexfNh7DAjHK2Sb7yDVZyAN4np5b7P1dThG7izoDBLSZU9PZOGnRd5FWNAZus1yE31rUlYLldnIXOGQ0YWWYMc3BLKzvr7A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JMnWl6QWtFzP5o+lmYu5YmclVOOHutE9KsJYEvwYFp8eCfh6+NVHd8sJspAC/clMfybNe+7ZL/RqpXwhNFsC3fA9qP4wZe7lF+wSB9BI0Q/QBdDsppSPU4GOT1KiQ96UfPJVdyUJmCpwFQRX1C5DPxq7FwdfU2McTtnY23n/3wU= Received: by 10.115.110.6 with SMTP id n6mr3755987wam.1197231828622; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m40sm4842364wag.2007.12.09.12.23.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:23:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475C4EC9.2040905@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:23:37 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geoff Huston CC: Ralph Droms , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6<->IPv4 address translation is not NAT? References: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> <4759E76E.2050301@apnic.net> <475AEF3E.4070201@gmail.com> <475C2B88.9050804@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: <475C2B88.9050804@apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 On 2007-12-10 06:53, Geoff Huston wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> I think an important point of commonality is that when translating >> between a smaller and a larger address space, you're forced to >> deal with port mapping as well as with address translation. > > not "forced", surely. "Might elct to" is close to the truth. I think it's forced iff you are seeking a purely stateless solution, which I realise from your explanation below is not what you're assuming. > And the algorithmic embedding of A in B applies asymmetrically. Correct. (Shanti is an example of that.) > >> That is the same problem whether the smaller/larger pair >> is single-IPv4/RFC1918 or IPv4/IPv6. >> >> Maybe we should talk about address sharing rather than address >> translation? > > I don't agree. Well, isn't the goal to allow entities in a smaller address space to access entities in a larger address space? I think that necessarily requires sharing (or multiplexing if you prefer). > > What is going on appears to be the "type" of translation. Yes, I agree with the distinction you make below - it just isn't quite what I was writing about. Brian > > One approach preserves stateless capability in the network elements and > all that is a consequence avoids the use of placing translation sate i > the network elements, and "embeds" the translation into the packet so > that a remote entity (or the same entity at a later time) can reverse > the translation and recover the orginal intended context. > > Another approach attempts to place state into network elements and then > all the packets within a context are treated in the same way. NAT > bindings are a good example of this state. > > Analogy of the differences between approaches: Imagine that you are > flying home from Vancouver and you have no short term memory (it happens > :-)). What do you do when you get off the flight in Canberra and you > have absolutely no memory that you left your car at the Airport in Row > 13? But you knew when you parked your car a week ago that you would > forget. Do you write down where you parked it and keep this mesage with > you through your trip so that its at hand upon your return (option a). > Or pin the message to the airport information board and hope that it > will still be there upon your return (option b). > > The algorithmic embedding is one of these "packet-state" approaches > where any network element could undo the operation given that the packet > contains sufficient information to reverse the operation. > > That's a long way of saying that I don't agree that embedding is > sharing! Embedding is another approach to translation :-) > > > Geoff From TabathahickeyWashburn@sox-online.com Sun Dec 09 15:55:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1TBV-0002Bq-RO; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:55:33 -0500 Received: from [209.102.171.166] (helo=vaio.dixnil.grics.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1TBV-0003xV-Fj; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:55:33 -0500 Received: from pacemake by sox-online.com with SMTP id LdzeOad60i for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:48:56 +0600 From: "Penelope Maurer" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1TC8-0002iC-MP for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:56:12 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1TC8-0002kn-E7 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:56:12 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1T9u-000Fjg-CV for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:53:54 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.6.222.241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1T9n-000Fj1-P1 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:53:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AED384A30; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:45 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lK5iSn1FisLf; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 191DF849EF; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CF0848BA; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:43 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ cc: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071209215039.H95996@mignon.ki.iif.hu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <20071209215303.J95996@mignon.ki.iif.hu> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Yes, but software may decide not to use the source address selection policy > of the OS. For example, if I recall correctly, Opera uses IPv6 even with > Teredo to connect to IPv6 sites, while IE follows the policy table and > prefers to use IPv4 if only Teredo is available. This behavior would indicate very bad coding practice in Opera.... I will test it.... Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 09 16:37:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Tpe-00028g-Ln for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:37:02 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Tpc-0004Li-Fj for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:37:02 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1TmX-000KwE-EH for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:33:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1TmA-000Ksw-Tr for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:33:38 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2007 13:33:26 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB9LXPE1009329; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:25 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB9LXHqZ011445; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:33:25 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:16 -0800 Received: from [10.255.1.140] ([10.21.118.67]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B1B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B1B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <57250A89-BBF5-4ED2-9DFD-B35C61E823C6@cisco.com> Cc: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:33:08 -0800 To: Suresh Krishnan X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2007 21:33:16.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C2451A0:01C83AAB] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=554; t=1197236005; x=1198100005; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20v4=20side=20unmodifiable |Sender:=20; bh=ctW817PfufvS3GLDfjz6ebTZRU3Urw6zzArpxiGUNYs=; b=mdSsH7Qcak7UvpmMVN9DwS2xPLLju1TGIHVaIhFr4/bdUoWI3ejUURvPLnxpxAZHMMKxt5v6 jdeheGqLBQ016lfyw9OCufQey//m/mdT/hfSOwfHISTiDZzm1lWDRDHU; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > * Any node that does not have a v6 implementation today > probably does not want one. So any v4 based changes will > not be delployed > * Why would a v4 host that has no pain currently try to change > itself to talk to a v6 host (who has the pain). The pain should > be where the gain is. yes... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHXF8UbjEdbHIsm0MRAjNCAKC+Zerk5Qu4FQ6QcBsEIdB63GJrlgCdEgat yXdCmvcOSs83b27YhgW41F0= =G6wd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 09 17:10:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1ULr-0000e5-QO for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:10:19 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1ULp-0005AV-Eq for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:10:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1UKD-000PE5-Nf for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:08:37 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [213.172.48.142] (helo=consulintel.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1UJq-000PCM-Lf for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:08:27 +0000 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1197241501; x=1197846301; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=iRx2VYjOWpAYUh BGneYow+G/HeKquUH80WayzwC37R3XENdjjIQivgZMIuY9CsmrHPn3LUe0FZorIj joUdJMwTIsV83XhE2LvkfodDCy27ypFIQ7+7TLv5icePyd1FNcm5D3ckdU43HZgx e4w4263aSKYIpqNv7piLPiueKZZBc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=eTl3c0oQFg+bGv8e6lvDgxVhzFzP89wnPNAj+TO+EZhbipxdLJ/jllw0D7UR3aOjpyx4Yj+Zh+anXGPTZSFNjAnxMpQl7NlqCDVsgHMXLhnOWSc6dPljPrQn9MP5v6Ui6LYPCvFGhfZ5cSi7f6dIHWzGHPHpsX/v0FiEXehXOWY=; Received: from [10.10.10.54] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002746565.msg for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:04:59 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:08:03 +0100 Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg6r/e7NiuTxKajEdyz4QANky3PwA== In-Reply-To: <20071209215039.H95996@mignon.ki.iif.hu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071209:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::CPSov3E1uY3fdeL9:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000004Af4 X-MDRemoteIP: 217.126.187.160 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:05:01 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 I don't completely agree. If certain applications decide to use Teredo if native neither 6to4 is not available, because they prefer IPv6 even if performance may seem lower, avoiding implementing a NAT traversal, because it is actually about the same as using Teredo, I don't think is a bad coding practice. Is it just a developer decision to use or not the default OS policy table. This is also the reason this table can be modified ! But you many need to avoid modifying it because that will affect all the applications. Regards, Jordi > De: Mohacsi Janos > Responder a: > Fecha: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:53:43 +0100 (CET) > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" > Asunto: Re: v4 side unmodifiable > > > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> Yes, but software may decide not to use the source address selection policy >> of the OS. For example, if I recall correctly, Opera uses IPv6 even with >> Teredo to connect to IPv6 sites, while IE follows the policy table and >> prefers to use IPv4 if only Teredo is available. > > This behavior would indicate very bad coding practice in Opera.... > I will test it.... > > Janos Mohacsi > Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects > NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY > Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 09 17:37:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1UmT-0004YW-M6 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:37:49 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1UmT-0005vW-Cz for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:37:49 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Ujv-0002Vn-9o for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:35:11 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.146.176] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Ujs-0002VJ-HC for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:35:09 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so2947712wah for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:35:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AxlZe4OgX+HrK3UQVVkwNi/Cc1Gsl7l9TzSqjnud5O0=; b=WaIpah5hMyl7h3985Ptmy8THWAQtCzii9r7/OpiXDl64RSBxDF3HLKtJ/YoIuZjhS7chYKv+IyRZW+HB+HPNpzy/wZuJrMksvISue2KG3ZaU2sNbxAzr4eghR2bOOaAytA/89id5Q6j6lfEbITiSrNEhteiKrhSyCSa191FT+LI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=fCIAvZ5IWXFHqoofMvYV9VeTqg6+7KnJ2m5dHEgal32/2qNabrHkilbFWUxbkhjxLUNIK2t6V8HWKABXmnl/uq6+6xofgo9BM50rYJxzkdrnAW4pgp91voU7u3+2/V6JYfZUc0lH/wxFdiVYEUWKxc5XDvCDk2HXDpBLwiKEM6Q= Received: by 10.114.177.1 with SMTP id z1mr5707792wae.1197239707856; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:35:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v38sm5048924wah.2007.12.09.14.34.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:35:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475C686B.3050706@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:12:59 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fred Baker CC: Suresh Krishnan , jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable References: <9B487B6D-52C9-4FEA-A326-E415A271F756@muada.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B1B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <57250A89-BBF5-4ED2-9DFD-B35C61E823C6@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <57250A89-BBF5-4ED2-9DFD-B35C61E823C6@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a On 2007-12-10 10:33, Fred Baker wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > >> * Any node that does not have a v6 implementation today >> probably does not want one. So any v4 based changes will >> not be delployed >> * Why would a v4 host that has no pain currently try to change >> itself to talk to a v6 host (who has the pain). The pain should >> be where the gain is. > > yes... I think you really have to look carefully at the incentives. If you're running services in order to make money, and a significant population of IPv6-only clients appears, you will be strongly incented to support them. So yes, the pain should be where the gain is, but that could well be on the IPv4 side. (I believe that argues for dual stack services, however, not for fiddling with the legacy stack.) Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 09 17:46:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Uup-0005q3-G3 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:46:27 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Uup-00068O-7c for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:46:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Uu7-0003u3-Pn for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:45:43 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.12.29.58] (helo=mint.apnic.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1Uu5-0003se-3i for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:45:42 +0000 Received: from [192.94.63.117] (dhcp117.yarralumla.aarnet.edu.au [192.94.63.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mint.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B1BD5F2D; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:45:39 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <475C708C.1010805@apnic.net> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:47:40 +1100 From: Geoff Huston User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Ralph Droms , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6<->IPv4 address translation is not NAT? References: <5A388B42-3C56-462A-8D27-58036B03E230@cisco.com> <4759E76E.2050301@apnic.net> <475AEF3E.4070201@gmail.com> <475C2B88.9050804@apnic.net> <475C4EC9.2040905@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <475C4EC9.2040905@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Well, isn't the goal to allow entities in a smaller address > space to access entities in a larger address space? I think > that necessarily requires sharing (or multiplexing if you > prefer). > >> >> What is going on appears to be the "type" of translation. > > Yes, I agree with the distinction you make below - it just > isn't quite what I was writing about. I had misunderstood what you were referring to with "sharing". I agree with "sharing" in the context you've described. Geoff From helena37@lucent.com Sun Dec 09 21:22:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1YHx-0002fo-W8 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:22:34 -0500 Received: from [210.221.217.210] (helo=210.221.217.210) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1YHx-0004G9-4f for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:22:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000601c83ad3$07996b40$cc0c2eb4@muekfucp> From: "abrahan jai" To: Subject: Get Started Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:35:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83AD3.079414E1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83AD3.079414E1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable •Quickest payouts• •Totally safe• Golden Gate •Fair gamming• •24/7 support• =20 •CASINO• =20 $2400 FREEwellcome BONUS $2400 =20   Black jack     Slots     Rouletie     Video poker     Craps   =20 Click Here ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83AD3.079414E1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
•Quickest = payouts•
•Totally = safe•
 Golden Gate •Fair = gamming•
•24/7 = support•

•CASINO•

$2400
FREEwellcome BONUS
$2400
 
Black jack
  		 
Slots
 		  
Rouletie
 		  
Video poker
  		 
Craps
 

Click Here

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83AD3.079414E1-- From SheldonbulldozeLogan@mhia.org Sun Dec 09 21:27:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1YN5-0007br-Bh; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:27:51 -0500 Received: from [190.40.77.161] (helo=win) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1YN4-0004Mb-VF; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:27:51 -0500 Received: from drugstore by mhia.org with SMTP id TjClFGHfpr for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:27:56 +0500 From: "Erick Jefferson" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1ZRZ-0003MK-J8; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:36:33 -0500 Received: from [201.229.145.235] (helo=tdev145-235.codetel.net.do) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1ZRT-0004fi-SJ; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:36:33 -0500 Received: from [201.229.145.235] by mail.wang-xing.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:40:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01c83ae6$bd20ed80$eb91e5c9@andrew> From: "nooArrington" To: Subject: I don't sign my son up Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:40:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Hey You I'm 22 years old I read your profile online Reply to me at Hose@GloryLandUsa.info and tell me about yourself if you want to chat or get to know each other better I will respond right away and send a pic and some of my info right away Thank you From joyceestradacherry@gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:09:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1gW1-0002qA-Fb; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:37 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.50.120.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.50.120]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1gW0-0000Pf-2Q; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:37 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 92.254.137.7 by smtp.58.9.50.120; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Katharine Richmond" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Katharine Richmond" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Christmas discount on w4tches Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:25 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Christmas are coming, 0rder precious repl1ca w4tches! Brand new models of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.posijee.com/ From Syed.Zacco@alpineholistic.com Mon Dec 10 06:31:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1gra-0002Wg-M2 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:31:54 -0500 Received: from c293ebf51.dhcp.bluecom.no ([81.191.62.41]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1gra-0000u8-0Q for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:31:54 -0500 Received: from regine ([143.141.126.108] helo=regine) by c293EBF51.dhcp.bluecom.no ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1BSzdf-000ARB-th for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:32:27 +0100 Message-ID: <267AA1E2.A8E3AA23@alpineholistic.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:31:51 +0100 From: "Syed Zacco" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ladnacs1 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040704050806040704070305" X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------040704050806040704070305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit give her a satisfying smile everytime you fuck http://idoscope.com/ --------------040704050806040704070305 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit give her a satisfying smile everytime you fuck http://idoscope.com/
--------------040704050806040704070305-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 07:28:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1hkK-0006w6-3O for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:28:28 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1hkI-0007qG-MM for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:28:28 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1hf4-000ALx-Un for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:23:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [194.242.114.73] (helo=poy.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1hey-000ALU-Ny for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:22:58 +0000 Received: by poy.chewa.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id 385A496809; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:22:55 +0100 (CET) To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:22:55 +0100 From: Remi Denis-Courmont Organization: Remlab.net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ee46bf05359c8ab6ff5b81dd608bdce@chewa.net> X-Sender: rdenis@simphalempin.com User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:08:03 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I don't completely agree. If certain applications decide to use Teredo if > native neither 6to4 is not available, because they prefer IPv6 even if > performance may seem lower, avoiding implementing a NAT traversal, because > it is actually about the same as using Teredo, I don't think is a bad > coding practice. You could _perhaps_ hold that case for a ***peer-to-peer*** application. Opera is a Web browser. There is no such things as "NAT traversal" problems when it comes to HTTP (because HTTP is _the_ most basic benchmark for a NAT device). Any HTTP client that ignores the policy table in any way, such as by forcefully trying IPv6 before IPv4, is just plain BROKEN. Same thing for POP, IMAP, SMTP, IRC (let alone DCC), FTP with EPSV, XMPP or any other client-server TCP-based protocol. -- Rأ©mi From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 08:19:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1iXN-0002sy-8m for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:19:09 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1iXM-0000Wo-8F for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:19:09 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1iV8-000G6P-E5 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:16:50 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [213.172.48.142] (helo=consulintel.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1iUj-000G2Z-5U for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:16:37 +0000 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1197295974; x=1197900774; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns; h=DomainKey-Signature:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To: Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; b=HKX6F5onvU6V0Q yCedA7/vo3OhhKO/HLOr70vyKOD7tEKozmlV+ULkwEOAkijyQMNN/AQ1VwlhZ60o txt7A7rzLVHr8v5zWB5vRmS/E77+rGtIFuWwlWJvHZCpstHvgj/TkTbPxpdycOmd A2GS6Brojzq1AOWldngiY1OX4hAcs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=g9KUZYwZjWdtY+Jf6twLpcvSsYZEjxfvXfAOXa7yli5oQATg+IdbibECpTM/IsHh7pj/9TujIuP5t3NaOokW6ZuNwHN0BuP/oS2yi46Msu6ts0Ik5/Y0ldiBaINrUckBH6KvntWcNBPsxcV/vVVsu/XbLI3GB/g/hRm+/9I2vZU=; Received: from [10.10.10.54] by consulintel.es (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.5.R) with ESMTP id md50002747233.msg for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:12:29 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:15:33 +0100 Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ To: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: v4 side unmodifiable Thread-Index: Acg7Lr52/MGnAachEdyz4QANky3PwA== In-Reply-To: <2caefd31d65cb621f5cc16301ee666f4@chewa.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-HashCash: 1:20:071210:v6ops@ops.ietf.org::1VmXlpgieN9WX8he:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001nCB X-MDRemoteIP: 217.126.187.160 X-Return-Path: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es X-MDAV-Processed: consulintel.es, Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:12:52 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Yes, I was not talking about the Opera case, just a general case (I said certain applications), which as you say, is probably more understandable in peer-to-peer cases. Regards, Jordi > De: Remi Denis-Courmont > Organizaci=F3n: Remlab.net > Responder a: > Fecha: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:22:05 +0100 > Para: > Asunto: Re: v4 side unmodifiable >=20 >=20 > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:08:03 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >=20 > wrote: >=20 >> I don't completely agree. If certain applications decide to use Teredo if >=20 >> native neither 6to4 is not available, because they prefer IPv6 even if >=20 >> performance may seem lower, avoiding implementing a NAT traversal, >=20 > because >=20 >> it is actually about the same as using Teredo, I don't think is a bad >=20 >> coding practice. >=20 >=20 >=20 > You could _perhaps_ hold that case for a ***peer-to-peer*** application. >=20 > Opera is a Web browser. There is no such things as "NAT traversal" problems >=20 > when it comes to HTTP (because HTTP is _the_ most basic benchmark for a NAT >=20 > device). >=20 >=20 >=20 > Any HTTP client that ignores the policy table in any way, such as >=20 > by forcefully trying IPv6 before IPv4, is just plain BROKEN. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Same thing for POP, IMAP, SMTP, IRC (let alone DCC), >=20 > FTP with EPSV, XMPP or any other client-server TCP-based protocol. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 >=20 > R=E9mi >=20 ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From Tu423@salonatlantis.net Mon Dec 10 09:15:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jPj-0006uc-1O for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:15:20 -0500 Received: from ip59937546.rubicom.hu ([89.147.117.70]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jPi-0004qk-Ds for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:15:18 -0500 Received: from bob ([179.165.1.122] helo=bob) by ip59937546.rubicom.hu ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ssfhc-000KBE-yq for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:15:33 +0100 Message-ID: <2A139018.589D1A9F@salonatlantis.net> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:15:16 +0100 From: "Tu Nicolini" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ibissanu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040406010702080005050702" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------040406010702080005050702 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit create your own sexual destiny and enlarge your cock http://www.aqcyu.com/ --------------040406010702080005050702 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit create your own sexual destiny and enlarge your cock http://www.aqcyu.com/
--------------040406010702080005050702-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 12:20:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1mIw-0000cr-2O for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:20:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1mIu-0006Oe-Kq for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:20:30 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1mEA-000ICU-If for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:15:34 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.6.222.241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1mE7-000IC6-TY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:15:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB7284A27; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:15:27 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id onFNc+8QZvTg; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:15:24 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 4002E84990; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:15:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C800846C7; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:15:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:15:23 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Remi Denis-Courmont cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: v4 side unmodifiable In-Reply-To: <4ee46bf05359c8ab6ff5b81dd608bdce@chewa.net> Message-ID: <20071210181254.M87188@mignon.ki.iif.hu> References: <4ee46bf05359c8ab6ff5b81dd608bdce@chewa.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote: > > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:08:03 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > > wrote: > >> I don't completely agree. If certain applications decide to use Teredo if > >> native neither 6to4 is not available, because they prefer IPv6 even if > >> performance may seem lower, avoiding implementing a NAT traversal, > > because > >> it is actually about the same as using Teredo, I don't think is a bad > >> coding practice. > > > > You could _perhaps_ hold that case for a ***peer-to-peer*** application. > > Opera is a Web browser. There is no such things as "NAT traversal" problems > > when it comes to HTTP (because HTTP is _the_ most basic benchmark for a NAT > > device). > > > > Any HTTP client that ignores the policy table in any way, such as > > by forcefully trying IPv6 before IPv4, is just plain BROKEN. > > > > Same thing for POP, IMAP, SMTP, IRC (let alone DCC), > > FTP with EPSV, XMPP or any other client-server TCP-based protocol. Agreed. The other group could be monitoring or diagnostic tools that directly using IPv6 or IPv4 without policy table.... Best Regards, Janos From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 12:25:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1mNp-0005QQ-WA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:25:34 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1mNp-0006Vl-OP for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:25:33 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1mNE-000JI6-HP for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:24:56 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [91.121.26.85] (helo=givry.fdupont.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1mN3-000JGj-AB for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:24:55 +0000 Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBAHOeW5065922; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:24:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <200712101724.lBAHOeW5065922@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Remi Denis-Courmont cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: policy table (was v4 side unmodifiable ) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:22:55 +0100. <4ee46bf05359c8ab6ff5b81dd608bdce@chewa.net> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:24:40 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 I proposed the RFC 3484 policy table to be per application: a default system wide table with the possibility to put in the environment of an application / user / etc (i.e., everything one can associate with an environment) a policy table and address selection control flag. This should give both the flexibility to apply a special policy in some cases, for instance use the local care-of address for printers than the remote home address, and the control over what policy is used. Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From manju-Perino@akkupower.at Mon Dec 10 15:25:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pBV-0004bo-Rd for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:25:01 -0500 Received: from [201.58.15.161] (helo=20158015161.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pBT-0006xo-4H for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:25:01 -0500 Received: from oem ([159.144.68.177] helo=oem) by 20158015161.user.veloxzone.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Aktyu-000HFQ-pu for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:25:30 -0200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:24:58 -0200 From: "manju Perino" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: jilliann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Right medication for the strongest ejaculation! http://goolift.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 15:40:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pQu-0008Tm-It for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:40:56 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pQu-0003dg-80 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:40:56 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1pMK-000EPI-IM for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:36:12 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1pMF-000EOA-Kl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:36:11 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBAKZoR2053096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:35:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:36:00 +0100 References: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 On 8 dec 2007, at 20:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Would it be possible to evaluate deployment issues, i.e., whether >> said mechanism is already available today in hosts, and if it >> isn't, whether it can easily be implemented in a modular way so it >> can be added by others than the OS vendor? > I think you also have to consider whether there's something to > tunnel *to* - is there a significantly large class of dual stack > services that will be able to make use of tunnels? And don't forget > the third class of solution: application level proxies. Would > you advise the operator of a large IPv4-only web site to > a) dual-stack the whole site > b) install a dual-stack proxy for IPv6 clients > c) install a layer 3 translator for IPv6 clients? As I said in the second session, dual stack isn't an appropriate mechanism for client computers. If we had that kind of address space we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Proxies are good but generally don't address UDP applications and are ususally a binary thing: either you proxy pretty much everything or you don't proxy at all. However, a mechanism where only sessions towards destinations using the unsupported IP version are proxied would be very useful, and if everyone who isn't dual stack used one, referrals wouldn't have to be a problem, either. A layer 3 translator is basically a more generic implementation of a proxy. It has the advantage that it can support more protocols than most proxies and possibly v4-v6-v4 operation, which would be nice in a situation where you have IPv4-only legacy devices but an IPv6-only network. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 15:57:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pgW-0000mp-2H for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:57:04 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pgT-0003zJ-QN for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:57:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1pfD-000GB4-Hl for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:55:43 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.189] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1pfA-000GAO-Ot for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:55:41 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so2100734rvf for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pvLVoOloGA8Zd9UaMiip2phKT6RqHKpQmxNChYjYI+k=; b=xUWxpM28OW96wtjwH97n/giPGV8yeSEBsTH3DN+s0EjFAsZn4E0wInWAY1KBgKs8m3qfGOdD92lyShV9o+/05GeecF501JunXyRRJxY/EAphJTq0ag7LgLjEA3jSCbcyXCuRjJaRl76xEyy4CTuVqFU7u9DCqA+GRAly3D0HzQ4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UrPb3JpFpJZtZhS82ArM9gB+z9udEMxGlPE3XvXnExubYt6HphFwwFhyXApEffoqDTQtQT3c3zDa8E4oqhVi/kZmJi+O+peChJzJIoYODh77vpsMJYk2OOxtcfisa6SMW79ma172PuVtvQDm/fQrOf8si7UUHUrOz9Tso2XUb+M= Received: by 10.115.74.1 with SMTP id b1mr1229521wal.1197320139826; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j38sm7193466waf.2007.12.10.12.55.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:55:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <475DA7BB.9040104@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:55:23 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document References: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 On 2007-12-11 09:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 8 dec 2007, at 20:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> Would it be possible to evaluate deployment issues, i.e., whether >>> said mechanism is already available today in hosts, and if it isn't, >>> whether it can easily be implemented in a modular way so it can be >>> added by others than the OS vendor? > >> I think you also have to consider whether there's something to >> tunnel *to* - is there a significantly large class of dual stack >> services that will be able to make use of tunnels? And don't forget >> the third class of solution: application level proxies. Would >> you advise the operator of a large IPv4-only web site to >> a) dual-stack the whole site >> b) install a dual-stack proxy for IPv6 clients >> c) install a layer 3 translator for IPv6 clients? > > As I said in the second session, dual stack isn't an appropriate > mechanism for client computers. If we had that kind of address space we > wouldn't have to have this discussion. I agree. That's why my question was about a server site. > Proxies are good but generally don't address UDP applications My question was specifically about a web site. > and are > ususally a binary thing: either you proxy pretty much everything or you > don't proxy at all. However, a mechanism where only sessions towards > destinations using the unsupported IP version are proxied would be very > useful, and if everyone who isn't dual stack used one, referrals > wouldn't have to be a problem, either. > > A layer 3 translator is basically a more generic implementation of a > proxy. Well, no; it specifically lacks understanding of the application layer. > It has the advantage that it can support more protocols than most > proxies and possibly v4-v6-v4 operation, which would be nice in a > situation where you have IPv4-only legacy devices but an IPv6-only network. Again I'm confused - are you talking about clients or servers? Why would anyone be operating IPv4-only servers on an IPv6-only network? (They may be operating IPv4-only applications, but that's where you might consider BIS or even DSTM.) Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 16:03:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pmQ-0004LM-2o for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:03:10 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1pmN-00047Z-Re for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:03:10 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1plK-000GsM-M4 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:02:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1plH-000Gro-SR for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:02:01 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBAL1dWx053548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:01:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <050334E7-1B2F-4ACB-83DF-73D33943FDFF@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <475DA7BB.9040104@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:01:49 +0100 References: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> <475DA7BB.9040104@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 On 10 dec 2007, at 21:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Proxies are good but generally don't address UDP applications > My question was specifically about a web site. Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. >> and are ususally a binary thing: either you proxy pretty much >> everything or you don't proxy at all. However, a mechanism where >> only sessions towards destinations using the unsupported IP version >> are proxied would be very useful, and if everyone who isn't dual >> stack used one, referrals wouldn't have to be a problem, either. >> A layer 3 translator is basically a more generic implementation of >> a proxy. > Well, no; it specifically lacks understanding of the application > layer. Isn't being generic accomplished by lacking understanding of specifics? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 18:17:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rsQ-0002LS-1T for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:17:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rsN-0007Rg-4G for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:17:30 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1roN-0005sZ-7e for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:13:19 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [171.68.10.86] (helo=sj-iport-4.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1ro0-0005pe-PE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:13:07 +0000 Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2007 15:12:51 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBANCsam021319; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:54 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBANCZCJ008569; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:12:54 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:40 -0800 Received: from [10.32.244.220] ([10.32.244.220]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> References: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6D46E900-8D8F-4B14-8843-4FB922F5EEA4@cisco.com> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum , jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Fred Baker Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:39 -0800 To: Brian E Carpenter X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2007 23:12:40.0359 (UTC) FILETIME=[293B2B70:01C83B82] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=849; t=1197328374; x=1198192374; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Translation=20versus=20tunneling=20docu ment |Sender:=20; bh=7OIaBVMiGGOVrbCmdg6L9Rp+R2KQibc+bkQODn2rGqY=; b=fKh4Dtk4lj1OEnkGTYjtEAxxZUh2j5nI9jdRe+va4u20LzA/yDCDukVj3Q lS7BWSf3BfwquGS4H/EqTVxuXtiapjt/aI84BOf2rjIbtSf3OvBdW0Ce9PWg qyCy93X/OJ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 8, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think you also have to consider whether there's something to > tunnel *to* - is there a significantly large class of dual stack > services that will be able to make use of tunnels? since we're talking about a service provider environment (in Alain's case), he can ensure that there is one. Alain chairs Softwires, and Softwires is standardizing both provider-provisioned capabilities based on MPLS and cpe-provisioned capabilities in which the provider might include in the same DHCP message that provisions the hold IPv6 prefix the address of a party to tunnel IPv4 traffic to. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHXcfnbjEdbHIsm0MRAmi3AKCloHwRqPdsKRFXO+u5NnSMCni2lQCgzJTA +rY3wb6qxRcrZos5FbqKdUQ= =5oWi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 19:10:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1shz-00087q-In for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:10:47 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1shx-0000Kp-CI for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:10:47 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1seq-000BYu-7v for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:07:32 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1sej-000BY4-LK for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:07:27 +0000 Received: from briand-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.90]) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1J1sed-0006t7-SZ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:07:19 -0500 Message-ID: <475DD4B0.1080401@ca.afilias.info> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:07:12 -0500 From: Brian Dickson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum , jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document References: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com> <475DA7BB.9040104@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <475DA7BB.9040104@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: briand@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-12-11 09:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> On 8 dec 2007, at 20:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> I think you also have to consider whether there's something to >>> tunnel *to* - is there a significantly large class of dual stack >>> services that will be able to make use of tunnels? And don't forget >>> the third class of solution: application level proxies. Would >>> you advise the operator of a large IPv4-only web site to >>> a) dual-stack the whole site >>> b) install a dual-stack proxy for IPv6 clients >>> c) install a layer 3 translator for IPv6 clients? >> >> As I said in the second session, dual stack isn't an appropriate >> mechanism for client computers. If we had that kind of address space >> we wouldn't have to have this discussion. > > I agree. That's why my question was about a server site. > >> Proxies are good but generally don't address UDP applications > > My question was specifically about a web site. In the specific case of a web site, there are some interesting observations: - the site operator is likely to care a great deal about reliable access, including all the corner cases - there is likely willingness to support a *small* number of methods/tricks/special support, to cover cases that need such support - the site operator may know more about which access is likely to be "better" (for some meaning of "better") than the client Also note, that the web server software may have access to information (on a connection-by-connection basis) about where/how the client connects, e.g. special address space, v4 vs v6, etc. And web servers have extra/special ways of potentially identifying/tracking special situations: cookies. Suppose, for instance, there were a few well-defined cookies which could help refine and/or control which choice of access to use, if more than one were available. The presence of a cookie could trigger HTTP redirects to specific (e.g. v4 or v6 or tunnel termination addresses) behavior. Brian Dickson From tnsours@jesssmith.com Mon Dec 10 19:24:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1sur-0001ZV-TE for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:24:05 -0500 Received: from [189.25.7.179] (helo=18925007179.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1suU-0004Ut-Ql for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:24:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 5030 invoked from network); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:24:05 -0200 Received: from unknown (HELO martinsd169723) (tnsours@jesssmith.com@90.164.75.10) by b30719bdjesssmith.com with SMTP; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:24:05 -0200 Message-ID: <001801c83b7b$5fa73930$0180d72c@martinsd169723> From: outline To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ztension Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:24:05 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83B7B.5FA73930" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.3000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1081 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83B7B.5FA73930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable he can now control the most powerful computers in the world. He deployed t= o indoctrinate children into the ways of the linear. = condition I call hyper-awareness. Anything and everything my five ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83B7B.5FA73930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

conventional forms. New technology provides capabilities to be

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 746,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 23%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

school. In the past I ve always been able to take off for jaunts ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83B7B.5FA73930-- From hcyanal@pgahq.com Mon Dec 10 19:27:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1sxx-0005Rc-27 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:27:17 -0500 Received: from [201.50.95.177] (helo=20150095177.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1sxv-0004Zi-T3 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:27:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 3105 invoked from network); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:27:16 -0200 Received: from unknown (HELO zan) (hcyanal@pgahq.com@189.235.152.154) by b15f32c9pgahq.com with SMTP; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:27:16 -0200 Message-ID: <001201c83b7b$d17f82b0$011fc2ec@zan> From: Virgie B. Kane To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: noptics Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:27:16 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83B7B.D17F82B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.1106 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.4682 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83B7B.D17F82B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable lighting, airbrushing, touch ups, varied films and high contrast virtual re= ality is being talked about this much when it probably is the idea rather than the artist's technical skills of a ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83B7B.D17F82B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

essence, convenience and efficiency are the driving force for
=

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 732,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 21%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

information which is related to the struggle for the competitive
= ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83B7B.D17F82B0-- From dion@escortcorp.com Tue Dec 11 00:26:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1xd3-0006a3-De for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:26:01 -0500 Received: from iphost-077-146.merlin.mb.ca ([216.73.77.146]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1xd3-0002gU-1R for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:26:01 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c83bb8$042c197f$2284e28d@dywab> From: "cheston lawrence" To: Subject: Download Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:55:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83BB8.0429718A" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83BB8.0429718A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable •Quickest payouts• •Totally safe• Golden Gate •Fair gamming• •24/7 support• =20 •CASINO• =20 $2400 FREEwellcome BONUS $2400 =20   Black jack     Slots     Rouletie     Video poker     Craps   =20 Click Here ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83BB8.0429718A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
•Quickest = payouts•
•Totally = safe•
 Golden Gate •Fair = gamming•
•24/7 = support•

•CASINO•

$2400
FREEwellcome BONUS
$2400
 
Black jack
  		 
Slots
 		  
Rouletie
 		  
Video poker
  		 
Craps
 

Click Here

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C83BB8.0429718A-- From kristina.ostman@nipinc.com Tue Dec 11 06:40:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J23TJ-0000O1-1e; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:40:21 -0500 Received: from [190.6.25.7] (helo=docs-res-gua-190-6-25-7.NET-UNO.NET) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J23TG-0006P4-Ae; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:40:21 -0500 Received: from [190.6.25.7] by mail.nipinc.com; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:44:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01c83bc9$9b4c6700$071906be@kristina.ostman> From: "ueqMayo" To: Subject: is more good, Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:44:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Hey you I'm 36 years old I read your profile online Reply to me at Desk@GloryLandUsa.info and tell me about yourself if you want to chat or get to know each other better I will respond right away and send a pic and some of my info right away Thank you From Kvidthmid@gchs.genevacoboe.org Tue Dec 11 13:42:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2A3v-0002Z9-Q8 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:42:35 -0500 Received: from adsl-64-237-216-218.prtc.net ([64.237.216.218] helo=adsl-64-237-216-55.prtc.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2A3u-0004wo-LR for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:42:35 -0500 Received: by 10.24.77.36 with SMTP id IPDrywarOWtdq; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:42:36 -0000 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.118.77 with SMTP id fLXOAXqWUNZzVV.8161086031652; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:42:34 -0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3C6ECE9D.2888BE03@gchs.genevacoboe.org> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:42:31 -0000 From: "Randy Kvidt" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: eldetest Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000307050403010004050308" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------000307050403010004050308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have bought 3 ladies watches from this seller and all 3 are just beautiful! http://www.tvbown.com/ --------------000307050403010004050308 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have bought 3 ladies watches from this seller and all 3 are just
beautiful! http://www.tvbown.com/
--------------000307050403010004050308-- From Vadik664@hiroshima.coop Tue Dec 11 16:40:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Cpf-0002Oe-7h for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:40:03 -0500 Received: from [201.251.28.152] (helo=host152-28.cpenet.com.ar) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Cpb-0001FZ-Qb for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:40:02 -0500 Received: by 10.57.191.122 with SMTP id zNPkwjTARnYhk; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:40:05 -0300 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.53.186 with SMTP id xklLzdhoiosuIm.1976879709710; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:40:03 -0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <8CA0326B.806882E7@hiroshima.coop> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:40:00 -0300 From: "Vadik Major" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: haettuje Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 These watches were designed with the greatest detail and
craftsmanship. http://www.tvwebaix.com/
From leeroy471@boolavogue.info Tue Dec 11 18:52:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Etp-000611-CO for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:52:29 -0500 Received: from c9343989.virtua.com.br ([201.52.57.137]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Eto-0004t7-HD for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:52:29 -0500 Received: from sada ([131.134.172.199]:13935 "EHLO sada" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by c9343989.virtua.com.br with ESMTP id S22NMRBRGMSTQAZZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:53:55 -0300 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:53:37 -0300 From: "leeroy Safvi" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: tserraeg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060807010600080501020700" X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------060807010600080501020700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit always wanted a rolex, well now you can get one, high quality http://www.tuvajina.com/ --------------060807010600080501020700 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit always wanted a rolex, well now you can get one, high quality http://www.tuvajina.com/
--------------060807010600080501020700-- From francesc@ml.com Tue Dec 11 22:16:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2I5I-0005o6-0w for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:16:32 -0500 Received: from s01060006258f18a2.vc.shawcable.net ([24.80.228.151]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2I5H-0001ql-JU for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:16:31 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c83c6d$02d00771$43d1c686@hlmrfnvg> From: "Wainberg" To: Subject: [8]: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:29:11 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We offer the software for downloads!!! http://lqilaqd.premiumoemsoft.net From changho@snds.com Wed Dec 12 00:54:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2KXz-0000OF-OD for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:54:19 -0500 Received: from 207-118-230-116.dyn.centurytel.net ([207.118.230.116]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2KXz-0005rM-9N for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:54:19 -0500 Message-ID: <000601c83d4d$02e4bcfc$43e73395@finucr> From: "jeffrey leo" To: Subject: Play and Win Real CASH Today!!! Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:16:07 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4D.02DF31DE" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4D.02DF31DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable •Quickest payouts• •Totally safe• Golden Gate •Fair gamming• •24/7 support• =20 •CASINO• =20 $2400 FREEwellcome BONUS $2400 =20   Black jack     Slots     Rouletie     Video poker     Craps   =20 Click Here ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4D.02DF31DE Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
•Quickest = payouts•
•Totally = safe•
 Golden Gate •Fair = gamming•
•24/7 = support•

•CASINO•

$2400
FREEwellcome BONUS
$2400
 
Black jack
  		 
Slots
 		  
Rouletie
 		  
Video poker
  		 
Craps
 

Click Here

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4D.02DF31DE-- From geraint@gardengatemag.com Wed Dec 12 08:55:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2S3a-0008Vr-CP for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:55:26 -0500 Received: from [201.78.209.125] (helo=20178209125.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2S3Y-00046Q-Js for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:55:26 -0500 Received: from [201.78.209.125] by ns1.augusthome.com; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c83cc6$028400a9$4f4c9dbd@huwyg> From: "aleck khong-me" To: Subject: /iagr@ at $1.41 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07:59 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CC6.0280975D" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CC6.0280975D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you experience any of the following serious side effects, stop taking = sildenafil and seek emergency medical attention or notify your doctor = immediately: Viiagra 50mg x 30 piils =3D $ 60.95 special pri.ces ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CC6.0280975D Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If you experience any of the following serious side effects, stop = taking sildenafil and seek emergency medical attention or notify your = doctor immediately:

Viiagra 50mg x 30 piils =3D $ 60.95 special = pri.ces

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CC6.0280975D-- From Jessi834@wwwspinners.com Wed Dec 12 13:25:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2WHB-0006Nf-JK for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:25:45 -0500 Received: from abhg209.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.7.96.209] helo=acvs40.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2WHA-0007ZL-Vj for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:25:45 -0500 Received: from megatech ([174.199.71.190] helo=megatech) by acvs40.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1PhQPK-000UIF-rv for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:25:56 +0100 Message-ID: <60168B22.F548D550@wwwspinners.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:25:42 +0100 From: "Jessi Kassam" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: nglotees Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 no more magnifying glass needed when you have a big dick! http://dlistede.com/ From office@take-hope.com Wed Dec 12 13:26:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2WI4-0006jx-65; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:26:41 -0500 Received: from 178-165-20-190.adsl.terra.cl ([190.20.165.178] helo=themachine) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2WI3-0005rr-5Z; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:26:40 -0500 Received: from [190.20.165.178] by take-hope.com; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:30:32 -0400 From: "nVang" To: Subject: Hey you Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:30:32 -0400 Message-ID: <01c83ccb$8ce67400$b2a514be@office> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Hey Baby I saw your profile online Maybe we can chat today? email me at Chief@GloryLandUsa.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. From tonegawa@thomasrealtyinc.com Wed Dec 12 14:21:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2X9a-000061-51; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:21:58 -0500 Received: from p54acdc50.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.172.220.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2X9X-0007W1-Sd; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:21:57 -0500 Received: from [84.172.220.80] by mailstore1.secureserver.net; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:25:49 +0100 From: "zFields" To: Subject: Hey Sexy Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:25:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01c83cfd$2f2a6880$50dcac54@tonegawa> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Hey Baby I saw your profile online Maybe we can chat today? email me at Fan@GloryLandUsa.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. From Doreeen_Deschenes@wemoo.com Wed Dec 12 15:09:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2XtE-0004VB-Tx for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:09:08 -0500 Received: from [189.25.144.47] (helo=18925144047.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2XtD-0002L5-RH for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:09:08 -0500 Received: from casa ([104.112.159.5] helo=casa) by 18925144047.user.veloxzone.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ISCsH-000FBG-ZJ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:09:17 -0200 Message-ID: <835694F5.AE9A3C69@wemoo.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:08:55 -0200 From: "Doreeen Deschenes" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: proembry Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 you get no love for having a small dick, only big gets it http://domepub.com/ From erkut@allsport.com.ua Thu Dec 13 01:10:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2hHC-000073-9v for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:10:30 -0500 Received: from host221-104-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.2.104.221]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2hHB-0000lo-7m for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:10:29 -0500 Received: from TEO by allsport.com.ua with ASMTP id FBF6C605 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:10:38 +0100 Received: from TEO ([143.141.35.176]) by allsport.com.ua with ESMTP id 260E20169473 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:10:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:10:27 +0100 From: "erkut pegalajar" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: vaas Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020202030703080403030106" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------020202030703080403030106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With this product, you'll be able to penetrate even the biggest and longest holes. http://www.bccst.com/ --------------020202030703080403030106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With this product, you'll be able to penetrate even the biggest and
longest holes. http://www.bccst.com/
--------------020202030703080403030106-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 13 07:35:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2nHt-00017z-Ud for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:35:37 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2nHq-0000QT-Fg for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:35:37 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2nBU-000CiZ-38 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:29:00 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [213.204.46.37] (helo=lemland.kurtis.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2nBO-000CiA-6f for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:57 +0000 Received: from [192.168.80.75] (dhcpL-254-113.uc3m.es [163.117.254.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by lemland.kurtis.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEE278C2E for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:28:49 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: <894F7C7F-D2CE-41DF-BD82-4A4847387ED9@kurtis.pp.se> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-187547307 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Minutes from Vancouver Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:27:59 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 4bf50494b99065e6ffd61702a66bcf2c --Apple-Mail-5-187547307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please find attached the minutues from Vancouver. Best regards, - kurtis - --Apple-Mail-5-187547307 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=ietf70-minutes.txt Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name="ietf70-minutes.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IETF 70 IPv6 Operations --- Monday session o Agenda Bashing Fred walked the workinggroup through the plan for the week. WG split in two sessions, one on Monday on current documents. Thursday will be about possible translation/transition mechanisms. o Document status 30 mins - draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-04 - draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications-04 - draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07 Jari will clear discuss next week. - draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 - draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-04 - draft-arifumi-v6ops-addr-select-sol-00 - draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-03 - draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 o draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-00 20 mins Stig presented the draft. Well known problem space that have been seen at IETF meeting networks for example. Draft presented before at the IETF by Tim. Hesham: Problem statement should be that people are not deploying SEND. Aren't you saying that there is a solution but people are not using it. Fred: That people are not using your solution is not a problem statement. Hesham: Well, there is an IETF standard, and there might be a reason why people don't use it. Stig: There are very few implementations, but I would like to deploy it in my network. Brian Dickson?: Would not DAD with ??? be a way forward? Bob Hinden: My take is that this is one of the class of things you can do if you have access to LAN. If you worry about things like this you might need tools to monitor and snoop the activity instead, so that it can be detected. This is an intrinsic of giving people access to the LAN. Dave Thaler: So it looks like you are asking at least two classes of questions. Problem statement as well as a look into solution space. Suresh Krishnan: If SEND get's deployed the XX can be fixed as well. Iljitsch van Beijnum: we need to have two ends of a communication. But in this case, wouldn't it be easier if the vendors implemented something that I could black-list RAs. I.e one-sided implementaion. If I want to solve this for real I need SEND, but then I would need to configure trust anchors. Fred: There was a comment that I could solve this in the switch, but not all networks like have switches. Like Wlan. Francis:This can be done due to misconfiguration or malicious attacks. In the first case, if I connect two routers by mistake to the same link, even with SEND, I have a peerfectly secure, non-working RA. o draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard-00 20 mins Gunther presented the draft. Suresh : There is no criteria for what is deemed valid in the draft? Gunter: It's something you know, one of the ports are dedicated for the router. Suresh: But you do not look at the RA? Gunther: No. Not anymore Fred: I understood taht to be a local decision. MAC or whatever. Suresh: But this still does not prevent mis configuration? Gunter: No. o draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-00.txt and 20 mins draft-ietf-v6ops-teredo-security-concerns-01 Suresh: presented the drafts regarding security concerns draft. Dave Thaler: Just to clarify one point. The one thing that is in addition to the well known implementation is the randomized port. Was discussed in the last v6ops sessison, and the conclusion was that if you are doing somehting that is not a bad thing to do. Iljitsch: I had a big issue with reading in the draft that protocols that can't be inspected by firewalls or enforce policy on. This is not something that I can thing the IETF can say. We can't limit ourselves to only things that firewalls can understand. Suresh: I think that was an old draft. Alain: We are somewhat late in the game but we will have to migrate to IPv6. PRoviders will at some point will have to offer this to customers. So are we vasting time on something for nothing? None of the transition mechanisms really work anyway. Suresh: We have already deployed some of these mechanisms. We need to maintain them. Tony Hain: I would agree with Alain, if it was the fact that all application developes had their act togehter. My issues are more with the structure and langauge of the document beeing overly repetitive. Alain: to answer Tony, if we look at the last few years and look at the through put and this wg in particular it will take us two more years. By then service providers should have started deploying native technoology. Dave Thaler: I would like to support this document and it dcouments what is mostly done already. Fred: I have a charter problem. My charter says that we are not supposed to cahnge protocols. AD and charis will talk to Mark who sponsored the Teredo work. If he agrees - as we suspect, what is the feeling of the room. How many thinks that we should pcik this up here? Vote in favour to pick up as a WG item. IETF 70 IPv6 Operations --- Thursday 1pm Transition Discussion Review of Agenda Announcements Alain - DHCPv6 bake-off and conformance testing this weekend. Hiroshimi - Please read draft on IPv4/IPv6 translator Jordi Palet - Measuring IPv6 Traffic Operators were commenting that < 5% was IPv6. Were they only counting IPv6-native traffic? Developed pcap-based tool to identify native and tunnelled IPv6 traffic (including: 6to4, teredo, proto-41, etc). Also classifies source by region (by RIR) Results 67% of all packets are IPv6 45% of all traffic is IPv6 by bytes 48% teredo 46% 6to4 Measurements were done in Europe (ES) 13% of traffic is native IPv6 (by byte-count) General trend of increasing IPv6 traffic Tools are stable, so looking for ISP in every region to run these tools - collecting statistics per region to compile a "state of IPv6". Note: The samples came from an operator who runs both 6to4 and Teredo relays - this may influence the results however Jordi does not consider this to be significantly influencing the results. ISPs may have much more IPv6 traffic than they exist Comments: These results are only representative of a single carrier who operates IPv6 relay services - it isn't representative of other networks These statistics will make more sense if they are run in an environment that doesn't operate a IPv6 relay Marcelo - IPv6 to IPv6 Translator Problem Statement and Analysis Many of the translator drafts looked very different. It might be an interesting idea to understand what we can change, what we cannot change. We need to make a decision what we will support and what we will not. Depending on which type of application behaviours that we want to support, the design of the NAT box may be completely different Classify applications and identify their requirements on the NAT box Several application behaviours (documented in draft and slides) Traffic can be initiated from either side (v4 or v6) Includes unidirectional traffic; "call-back" traffic (bi-directional); or, referrals - where nodes may tell other nodes about traffic destinations What application behaviours are we going to support when we implement NAT translators Could just support current NAT behaviours IPv6 nodes communicating into the IPv4 world Implement all behaviours of current IPv4 NAT for IPv6? Some drafts change IPv4 hosts, some change IPv6 hosts, some change both of them Other considerations What are the application scenarios Where are we going to place this box? At the end-site (customer) or in the ISP? Transparency - are the nodes aware of the existence of an IPv4/IPv6 translator? Comments: Ed - Are we ready at this point to rule out - making sure we are not trying to rule out certain behaviours just yet. This is useful to compare the behaviours of current proposals and supports the Eric - The transparency and what parts you need to change seem to have a lot of overlap. >You may need to update nodes, but you may not need to have explicit communication with the box You assumed the v6-world only had v6, but what about legacy hosts? How do you capture this? >These were not network diagrams, just translation behaviours But if v6 is only on one side, it is easier that whether v4 exists on both sides > Why would you translate if you have native v4 Miyakawa - Do ISPs need NAT64? NAT64 is not acceptable in the backbone or core of the ISP, as there is too much state in the network and is at risk for DoS. I do not think general purpose NAT64 will exist in ISP. What about Dual Stack - single stack is still 10 years out. Application specific NAT64 (restricted to certain services) may be useful. It is useful to split out general purpose and app. specific services Houston - This doesn't seem to have anything in common with existing IPv4 NATs (other than the name). Are we getting confused by IPv4 NAT terminology and are trying to apply these principles to IPv6. This approach will not get you anywhere if we assume this is a kind of NAT - it is not a NAT as we knew it - consider abandoning the NATv4 concepts. > All the application behaviours come from a non-NAT world. Geoff didn't see anything that was obviously application-specific. Hiroshimi - We need to set a goal, and it should depend on the deployment scenario. What is the approach to the translation issue? The analysis should be conducted - are all these models really used in the world? Jordi - Inside is probably not a good use of terminology. Instead of using "ISP Inside", use in the ISP, in the CPE or in the host. Should you put this in the ISP - security problems - Where are application embedded addresses described - this may be missed. > Isn't this a callback? Isn't a callback something that needs long-lived state? > No distinction was made - example FTP. It could be split into short-lived and long lived. Need to separate out the embedded address problem (within applications) Alain Durand - Sharing a single IPv4 address among many broadband customers 10-15 years ago we assumed we would have moved to dual-stack and this would have occurred before IPv4 run-out. This didn't happen so we need to consider something different. The Internet is running out of IPv4 addressed. The Internet edges (hosts in the home and content services) are IPv4 Home computers are not replaced regularly - 5 years plus. Windows XP does not support IPv6-only. Simply focusing on new devices with IPv6 is not an approach as I must provide services to existing hosts (including Windows XP) Most web servers are IPv4 - it is going to take a long time to have all the content servers to IPv6 The ISP (in the middle) may need to change something to make these IPv4 services work when run-out occurs We cannot afford to give a single IPv4 public address to each customer. It must be shared among many subscribers. This will allow "legacy" hosts to access the IPv4 internet. Options: Instead of provisioning them with an IPv4 address, we only provision them with an IPv6 address. The default is not giving an IPv4 address - IPv4 may be at additional costs. Assume we can upgrade the CPE/home gateway. Double NAT for legacy home devices. IPv4 to IPv6 to IPv4. The ISP does not need to maintain IPv4 in the access networks. The service provider maintains a translator that converts IPv6 into IPv4. How would we scale this? In the home, use NAT46, in the ISP use NAT64. Could use DHCPv6 to configure the home gateway. The home gateway uses an IPv6 prefix for translation to and from IPv4. DNS can be translated, or the home gateway can be a DNS proxy MTU adaptation. IPv pMTUd between servers. May not be such a big issues based on analysis. FAQ Why not use tunnelling instead of NAT? Because you would need a IPv4 address Why not use double v4 NAT You would need private addresses and the RFC 1918 pools are too small to address all customers Why not have home v6-only and translate in the home gateway? Will not help legacy v4-only devices What about new v6-only hosts trying to reach the v4 internet Not addressed Shin - We can divide a network into regions. We do not see a problem with 10/8 pool size. JPNIC has proposed to APNIC that a address space is proposed for the purpose of translation so that it does not overlap with RFC1918 addresses in use. Define another IANA allocation for service providers to use. No issues with double NAT > Islands of overlapping space make it hard to have visibility across the entire network. If you can control the CPE, you might be able to do something like you propose - but this may not apply to all environments. Eric Vine - Why dont you just encapsulate the IPv4 packet in the IPv6 tunnel. Why cant you just NAT at the outside > You can identify individuals because they are tunnelled - Requirements must be clearly identified for broadband providers. Eric - Do you have requirements on the NAT in the ISP? > Distribute the NAT64 as close as possible to the customer. So only 20,000 customers per translator (order of magnitude) Ralph - This is a particular deployment of NAT46/NAT64. Is it a particular deployment, or are there features that need to go into these translators that must be fed into the working group? > The home gateway NAT46 is not stateful. The NAT64 should be the "generic IPv6 to IPv4 translator". But what is the packet encapsulation/IPv6 addressing that will be compatible with these NAT64 generic translators. So there may be specific modes of translation to consider - these are not two NAT devices doing the same thing. > Correct Elwyn Davies - Requirements and Other Considerations for NAT-PT Replacement A lot of the failings of NAT-PT were attributed to the DNS ALG. What requirements and issues can we draw from RFC 4966 and discuss architectural trade offs. The major issue was the use of the DNS ALG. Synthesised AAAA addresses from A. DNS responses were no longer globally valid. If you do change DNS responses you must not violate the semantics of DNS. Possible use this in the host instead of the gateway - issues of multiple resolvers and this requires a modification of the host. RFC 2766 aims for transparency and autonomous operation. What are the options for any new solution that we bring up. We could stick with transparency. Could allow the IP stack to become aware of the translation going on. Should we modify the IPv6 host, IPv4 host or both? I can't see that changing the IPv4 stacks is sensible of feasible. I believe it is IPv6 stack only. Allow the host stack to be aware of translation instead of requiring it to be aware. Allow or require applications on the host to be aware of the translation? This awareness is not a binary value - different degrees of awareness that could be put into the host. If you did have awareness in the host, you might be able to achieve an ALG-free translator. A single generic box that is good for all time and new applications just work. You might be be able to select a translated connection only when required. Unawareness of a translator promotes lowest common denominator situation Could control the connection from host to gateway If you do put awareness in, there are downsides. Deployability - more work to convert applications if it is required Some issues in RFC 2766 can be fixed with minimal awareness. Perhaps we can identify IPv6 translated addresses by prefix? Is there a way to provide a universal ID that works across IPv4 and IPv6? SHANTI is existence proof of this RFC 2766 does not translate multicast. Not sure whether this is a big problem. Proposals in the pipeline - must make a decision RFC 2766 breaks Mobile IPv6. How important is this? Co-locating NAT-PT and the Home Gateway may help Scalability Dynamic selection of the gateway? Single point of failure vulnerability reduction. Dave Thaler - Transitioning to IPv6 Lots of entities involved, hosts, servers, networks, local networks. They don't all move towards IPv6 at the same time. IPv6 apps talking across an IPv4-only network. Most work done here. IPv4 capable apps talking across an IPv6-only network. Has been mostly delayed. IPv4-only app talking to IPv6-only device and vice-versa. NAT-PT, BITS, BITA, TRT. Scenario caused by IPv4 address scarcity. Port is fixed, what about a legacy host that needs to talk to the dual-stack server, but IPv4 is behind NAT. This is a gap in the IETF. The IAB needs the IETF to consider this scenario. A poor story is better than no story. Remember this is for IANA-reseverd static Ports. Comments Tony - As we develop a list of things we need to pay attention to - your diagrams do a good job. Alain is trying to solve something else - we need to separate the two different issues. > Yes. David Hankins - Chose a bad example for application. HTTP has a host header, so you could use that. Alain - Are you looking at this for an enterprise environment or home network? > Intentionally ambiguous as it could apply to different deployments. Important to make a distinction between the different environments as different networks may need this "fixed" in different ways. The qty of addresses saved is a big decision factor. Ralph - How did this get referred? > IAB requested IESG to ask the IETF to fix this. Why did they ask? > Its a gap and not being addressed. Chris - I don't think the IETF should try and figure out what kind of environment is a home or enterprise. We still need to solve it - its IP. Iljitsch - Reviving NAT-PT In response to plenary - the content people do not have a problem. ISPs do have a problem, new addresses for new customers. The dual-stack problem doesn't solve anything for end-users. You still need everything you need for IPv4 and IPv6 just adds complexity NAT-PT solves the interoperability issue. Make "fake" AAAA records from A records. Iljitsch - SHANTI It shouldn't be any worse than you get today with NATv4. Upper layer protocols can talk IPv6 to IPv4 , there is something in the middle that makes IPv4/IPv6 translator through the use of a SHIM in the stack, and a translator device. Distributed IPv4 stack. DNS - suggest the resolver maps A records into AAAA records expanded with ::ffff:/0 - note that these never appear on the wire because of shimming. NAT-PT Remove the fake AAAA records and provide the original A record. IPv4 to IPv6 - use DNS to find the mapping. Comments: Eric - lots of SHIM6 terminology but no detail on SHIM6 itself. Will double translation between v4 to v6 get us into more trouble? Don't we need to consider where to tunnel it? Going back and forward means we lose some things. What about tunnelling? > The reason I do translation: 1) IPv4 header needs a source address anyway 2) IPv6 application / IPv4 application , IPv4 host - for the translator it is all the same thing - Can we describe the SHANTI solution with different terminology? Suggest we may look at this more - how do we build distributed IPv4 stacks? - Address translation is also considered in routing research group for multi-homing. Can we come up with one proposal that fits both forums? Alain - I like the mapping you create between v4 and v6 address - could work between v4 and v6, and between v4 to v6 to v4. We could use the same translation method in both devices. (NAT46 and NAT64). Alain: Shanti is attaching itself to the SHIm6 proposal > Not using SHIM6 it is ripping out 80%+ of the SHIM6 proposal Implemented on IPv4 side so non-starter? > No only requires changes on the IPv6 side. Does not require any changes on the IPv4 side > That is correct David: v4-to-v6 proposal OK Martian address space a problem > Can use anything else Might want to consider doing address translation closer to the subscriber rather than centralising it into the network > May be a valid approach Where do we as the IETF need to be going? - Should this work be done - If so, what are we trying to solve, what are we not trying to solve? If its an expensive bandaid, we may have it for a long time. If we do work on a translator we need to use existing technology as much as needed. Comments - The party that has the greater interest in making translation work should make the changes. We need it in both stages - You opened the question with a solution space. What about tunnelling? We could restrict the tunnel endpoints. What are the questions we are trying to solve? Starting from scratch and designing a new NAPT will push us well past the date we run out of v4 - Jordi - Saying the same thing. Isn't a lot of this sorted out in the softwires wg? Perhaps we need something else - the new case when we have IPv6-only servers. - Jari - we need to decide whether we will modify the IPv6 host/stack. It's clear we cannot change the IPv4 stack. - There may be IPv6-only devices such as low-powered 802.15 devices. - We need to separate DNS ALG from NAT technology. Jordi: We don't have a solution when you turn off IPv4; that's where we need a translation mechanism. Alain: Thank you Jordi for telling me how to run my network. Are we going to end up in a world that is worse than we have now? Is it wise to move forward? When I look at v4 translation using some form of private space in the middle and this is going to get us deeper into v4 and multi translations. No light at the end of the tunnel(s). If I look at IPv6 to the residence with a v4 translation (v4-v6-v4) then it brings v6 to the residence and gives an incentive for the content provider to move to v6. The customers have two paths to the world. Over v6 it provides a better experience and an escape path from the multiple translated v4 mess. Marc: Same comment as Tony. We need to define the use cases and deploy whatever technology we have right now. See if that works, before doing more protocol development and dirty tricks. That is the v6ops mandate. We need to be careful about going too fast in protocol work. Hiroshi: double or triple translation will be required and will happen. Nobody knows or has tried it; more research/experiemntation required. Erik It sounds like a good idea to get some experience / test experience Looking at tunnels, what is practical? Reverse proxy may work and should not be discarded (limited application) Other tools in the toolbox - no feeling for what has been tried out there. It would be useful to hear what other people have tried. Harvest research from people - try new things. NAT-PT and taking out the DNS-ALG sounds like a useful tool. Two pronged: go learn more stuff; and do the modifications to the NAT-PT as required. David Miles: From an operators perspective is a desire to change CPE. CPE is going to be in a static state until something new comes around. v4 is done well; some do v6 as well. Don't believe we can change the ipv4 host to make them work any better. reality is that a lot of the v6 hosts are not going to change either. This is about timing: wee can deploy dual stack and SP-NAT. The BEHAVE WG is helping to do P2P without the need for ALG. There is a toolkit that can allow a v6 deployment to occur in conjunction with v4. the problem I see is in the earlier slides, a dual stack device that is running a service of some kind behind NAT where there is reserved port (or multiple demand for that port) is the issue. The operators are looking for solutions today; identify gaps. Iljitsch: Parallel development as per Erik's statement makes sense. Tunneling vs trranslation - tunneling is going to be harder. This will require modifications (v6host etc). Proxying: https proxy is generic tcp proxy. Can do any TCP protocol and can be deployed today/tomorrow? ?: We need to reconsider this from the more fundamental viewpoint: simpler is better. What is the simplest method? We need to identify this. The complex solutions will never be used. We need to compare which is easier (move to v6; or translator) Jari: Alain's presentation is interesting; solution may not be the correct one but it is worth researching. We need to identify what we need to do. Which nodes have to be modified? The v4 side cannot be modified. Can only modify the v6 host. Are we prepared to bite the bullet and have v6 host modifications? Is it practical to expect that it will work without modifications --Apple-Mail-5-187547307-- From jkl577@weighin.com Thu Dec 13 10:09:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2pgf-0006xD-Ia for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:09:21 -0500 Received: from [202.69.180.109] (helo=[202.69.180.109]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2pge-0007I0-Fa for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:09:21 -0500 Received: from glo ([103.136.35.9]:1256 "EHLO glo" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [202.69.180.109] with ESMTP id S22ELUJSYOCNTYVN (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:16:49 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:16:20 -0800 From: "jkl gorham" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: dlegneka Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Your little package deserves more attention. Make his dream come
true, with this new ultimate growth medicine! http://www.madtrck.com/
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 13 13:17:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2scv-00089J-92 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:17:41 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2scu-0004BK-Vf for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:17:41 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2sXh-000MJb-2O for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:12:17 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.15.163.216] (helo=tndh.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2sXe-000MJD-N9 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:12:15 +0000 Received: from eagle (192.168.123.10:2534) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:12:11 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Tony Hain" To: "'Kurt Erik Lindqvist'" , "'IPv6 Operations'" References: <894F7C7F-D2CE-41DF-BD82-4A4847387ED9@kurtis.pp.se> In-Reply-To: <894F7C7F-D2CE-41DF-BD82-4A4847387ED9@kurtis.pp.se> Subject: RE: Minutes from Vancouver Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:12:01 -0800 Message-ID: <183501c83db3$a9092bd0$fb1b8370$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acg9hVJBOj6NY+22QlGnQNEAY/uLLgAK0q2w Content-Language: en-us Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 The notes about my comment to Dave's presentation miss my primary point: Comments Tony - As we develop a list of things we need to pay attention to - your diagrams do a good job. Alain is trying to solve something else - we need to separate the two different issues. Dave developed a great diagramming model to expose all the issues. The point is that we need to do explicit versions for each of the problem spaces that people are trying to solve. We are back to the point where people have their own favorite hammer to deal with the issues in the corner case where they live, and we need to expose all the trade-offs they are making. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Kurt Erik Lindqvist > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:28 AM > To: IPv6 Operations > Subject: Minutes from Vancouver > > > > Please find attached the minutues from Vancouver. > > Best regards, > > - kurtis - From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 13 16:31:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2veR-00016Q-Ue for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:31:27 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2veQ-0002WN-C9 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:31:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2vZb-000GgP-Mx for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:27 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [194.242.114.73] (helo=poy.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2vZ5-000GbD-HV for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:26:12 +0000 Received: from basile.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2002:3e4e:969c:0:211:11ff:fe25:e6b4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by poy.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBE2967F7 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:25:52 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Organization: Remlab.net To: "'IPv6 Operations'" Subject: RFC3484 and RFC1918 clarification Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:25:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart11630197.p46hkAWD7s"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200712132325.45436.rdenis@simphalempin.com> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 --nextPart11630197.p46hkAWD7s Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hello, I was wondering if RFC1918 addresses were, in RFC3484 sense, supposed to be= =20 considered of the same or of a smaller scope than public IPv4 addresses? Say a dual-stack host has a private IPv4 with a default (NATted) route, and= =20 6to4 and/or Teredo IPv6 connectivity (no native) If an implementation treats RFC1918 as differently scoped from public IPv4= =20 addresses, it will prefer the IPv6 pseudotunnels through the relays over th= e=20 native IPv4 link. My personal take is that this is a bad idea (and it=20 contradicts the statement I made last week), but I'd like to have other's=20 opinion... Regards, =2D-=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ --nextPart11630197.p46hkAWD7s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkdho1kACgkQw+xtvt1tEr316gCg6LzIhLKmd+9FbsaYHPhfMi6M WfgAoIMcFyNyGip5DrV6f4ApJLZaodu0 =iuco -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart11630197.p46hkAWD7s-- From raid1@netcplus.com Thu Dec 13 21:49:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J30c8-0007d6-KO for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:24 -0500 Received: from [58.140.150.2] (helo=58.140.150.2) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J30c4-0001Ba-Sr for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:24 -0500 Message-ID: <000501c83dfb$054caf76$6009e083@vcgeqa> From: "giffie nena" To: Subject: a safe and secure system. Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:02:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Golden Gate Fair gamming Craps and more more games Free welcome bonus 2400 $ http://www.topgamingsite.net From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 14 07:54:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3A3X-00064y-Ey for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:54:19 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3A3W-0004Kx-W7 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:54:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J39xp-0001Dv-OP for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:48:25 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.6.222.241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J39xG-000191-Rs for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:48:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C040084728; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:47:45 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jWrQTEQGxFJI; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:47:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 87351846CB; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:47:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8564784648; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:47:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:47:42 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= cc: 'IPv6 Operations' Subject: Re: RFC3484 and RFC1918 clarification In-Reply-To: <200712132325.45436.rdenis@simphalempin.com> Message-ID: <20071214132401.I79862@mignon.ki.iif.hu> References: <200712132325.45436.rdenis@simphalempin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-1744115038-1197636462=:79862" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-1744115038-1197636462=:79862 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi Remi, In my opinion. The RFC1918 style private addresses has smaller scopes than= =20 global addresses. In IPv4 has similar concept of scoping of addresses like= =20 in IPv6. host local: 127.0.0.0/8 link local: 169.254.0.0/16 - RFC 3927 ~site addresses: 10.0.0.0/8 et al. - RFC 1918 global addresses: routable IPv4 addresses However the implementation I see is slightly different:=20 127.0.0.0/8 treated link local - scope 0x2 169.254.0.0/16 - scope 0x2 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 treated as global - scope 0xE=20 (althougt there is a remark: /* XXX: It should be 5 unless NAT */) I think the implementation is correct. Actually almost everybody is using= =20 private addresses with NAT gateway as an outgoing connection. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, R=E9mi Denis-Courmont wrote: > =09Hello, > > I was wondering if RFC1918 addresses were, in RFC3484 sense, supposed to = be > considered of the same or of a smaller scope than public IPv4 addresses? > > Say a dual-stack host has a private IPv4 with a default (NATted) route, a= nd > 6to4 and/or Teredo IPv6 connectivity (no native) > If an implementation treats RFC1918 as differently scoped from public IPv= 4 > addresses, it will prefer the IPv6 pseudotunnels through the relays over = the > native IPv4 link. My personal take is that this is a bad idea (and it > contradicts the statement I made last week), but I'd like to have other's > opinion... > > Regards, > > --=20 > R=E9mi Denis-Courmont > http://www.remlab.net/ > --0-1744115038-1197636462=:79862-- From Isto206@broadmeadbaptist.org.uk Fri Dec 14 10:29:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CTO-0004rM-7X for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:29:10 -0500 Received: from e181173046.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.181.173.46]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CTN-0000Oe-J9 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:29:10 -0500 Received: from mkb-mado ([166.134.4.136] helo=mkb-mado) by e181173046.adsl.alicedsl.de ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ONInX-000LPA-Es for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:29:09 +0100 From: "Isto Marusa" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: lessiwfa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Sex 7-9 times a day? Pervert? Nope! It's a happy man using our
medication. http://rfldubai.com/
From antoniaHolmlund@broadmeadbaptist.org.uk Fri Dec 14 10:31:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CVG-0005ji-Ph for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from e181173046.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.181.173.46]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CVG-0000TE-7w for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from mkb-mado ([140.166.187.149] helo=mkb-mado) by e181173046.adsl.alicedsl.de ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1WzPim-000SOI-jy for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:31:42 +0100 Message-ID: <30D490C5.E096F961@broadmeadbaptist.org.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:31:05 +0100 From: "antonia Holmlund" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: levalloi Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050405060403060402050005" X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------050405060403060402050005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit if you want all the pussy in the world, you need a large cock http://reelones.com/ --------------050405060403060402050005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit if you want all the pussy in the world, you need a large cock http://reelones.com/
--------------050405060403060402050005-- From gnpine@remibroadway.com Sat Dec 15 02:50:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Rmv-0007bb-QI for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:50:21 -0500 Received: from [77.236.72.6] (helo=remibroadway.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Rmr-0002oJ-Rt for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:50:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 351 invoked from network); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:50:19 +0500 Received: from unknown (HELO MENEGER1OXRANA) (gnpine@remibroadway.com@92.163.194.186) by 648ec4dremibroadway.com with SMTP; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:50:19 +0500 Message-ID: <001201c83f19$0c7007a0$024a515c@MENEGER1OXRANA> From: Roslyn To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: I at kings Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:50:19 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83F19.0C7007A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.2963 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.1158 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83F19.0C7007A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable versatile way of accessing and communicating information. With Silence. Wh= ite out. Black out. Lights out. It didn't happen, communication systems, the unity that is created by the exchange ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83F19.0C7007A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

who works with shapes. Both concepts can be equally complex and

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 725,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 25%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

art that exists solely in the computer. Computer generated art
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83F19.0C7007A0-- From latifaana@ayna.com Sat Dec 15 05:45:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3UWI-0003CH-OA; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:45:22 -0500 Received: from [89.108.47.118] (helo=computer) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3UWG-0006ZY-HV; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:45:22 -0500 Reply-To: From: "m7m7 لطيفة" Subject: في خدمتكم Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:45:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ba9b8496764663b12c333825fbf6b3d معلومة

معلومة                                                m3loma

 

نافذة للحياة العصرية

 

 

 

خدمة الأبراج اليومية

 

اشترك في القائمة البريدية مجانا لتصلكم نشرتنا " برجك اليوم "

 

من قسم سر الأبراج المفضل للعديد من مستخدمي الانترنت

 

 

معلومة . كوم

 

الموقع العربي الشامل

 

www.m3loma.com

 

منتدى معلومة : ملتقى الشباب والشابات العرب

 

اغاني – صور – كروت تهنئة – العاب – فيديو  

أزياء – رجيم – طبخ – تغذية   

تعارف – زواج – دردشة

 

شبكة إخبارية تحدث على مدار الساعة

 

نكت – شعر – موسوعات ثقافية وعلمية

 

خدماتنا لا حصر  لها تتوسع يوميا

 

في انتظاركم

-----

  

 

From ephremstwy@ufans.com Sat Dec 15 09:03:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Xbn-0001tm-TP for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:03:15 -0500 Received: from [92.228.229.22] (helo=f055151118.adsl.alicedsl.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Xbn-0002rl-7M for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:03:15 -0500 Received: from deko ([195.178.128.166] helo=deko) by f055151118.adsl.alicedsl.de ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1idKzB-000LNI-Lh for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:03:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:03:19 +0100 From: "luther ephrem" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: enealoog Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed stop wasting your money on other shit, buy penis pills http://rdexcite.com/
From Cordato@4lyk-zograf.att.sch.gr Sat Dec 15 10:34:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Z2B-0001fb-4y for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:34:35 -0500 Received: from dqs13.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.24.178.13] helo=dpa37.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Z2A-0005oW-HE for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:34:34 -0500 Received: from mig ([157.169.86.116] helo=mig) by dpa37.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1QmfvP-000YGH-kK for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:34:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:34:19 +0100 From: "Cordell Cordato" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: itunevne Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071215-0, 2007-12-15), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 you aint got shit if your not packing an 8 inch cock http://raldoon.com/ From licitly@wcgh.org Sun Dec 16 01:18:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3mpl-0005Z8-TO for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:18:41 -0500 Received: from 75-132-207-8.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com ([75.132.207.8] helo=evpjmv) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3mpl-0003cB-H1 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:18:41 -0500 Message-ID: <000401c83fa9$c52ad280$0100007f@fvrtyaf> From: "Elwood Mitchell" To: Subject: Re: Christmas Tree Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:18:42 -0600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f ms windows 2003 enterprise server - 69 ms xp professional with sp2 - 49 steinberg wavelab 5.01a - 49 ulead videostudio 11.0 plus - 39 crystal xcelsius professional v4.5 - 59 adobe fireworks cs3 - 59 autodesk autocad lt 2008 - 69 adobe photoshop cs2 v 9.0 - 69 microsoft vista ultimate - 89 steinberg cubase sx 2.2.0.33 - 39 discreet 3d studio max 6.0 with character studio - 129 webeasy pro 6.0 - 39 adobe photoshop cs2 v 9.0 - 69 2003 microsoft office professional with business contact manager for outlook - 69 steinberg nuendo 3.1 - 99 cyberlink powerdvd ultra deluxe 7 - 29 type supercheapoem. com in |nternet Explorer From Gates@kvvi.net Sun Dec 16 05:06:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3qOb-0008Rk-Ev for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:06:53 -0500 Received: from anancy-157-1-53-231.w86-213.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.213.192.231]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3qOa-0004F7-OW for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:06:53 -0500 Received: from f-5uqp6pyswns1p by kvvi.net with ASMTP id CACC5AAA for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:07:22 +0100 Received: from f-5uqp6pyswns1p ([177.184.137.142]) by kvvi.net with ESMTP id 83578A529F87 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:07:22 +0100 Message-ID: <236E4856.BA0CDE01@kvvi.net> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:06:43 +0100 From: "Gates Koletar" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: nkenberg Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040503020200080102040306" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------040503020200080102040306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit forget trying to make your dick big, virility pills really do it! http://laihomes.com/ --------------040503020200080102040306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit forget trying to make your dick big, virility pills really do it! http://laihomes.com/
--------------040503020200080102040306-- From teinkemper@abenaquicarriers.com Sun Dec 16 20:43:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J451L-0008E5-4Z; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:43:51 -0500 Received: from [117.9.43.166] (helo=[117.9.43.166]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J451K-0006q4-4r; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:43:51 -0500 Received: from [117.9.43.166] by mail.daystar1.net; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:39:47 +0800 Message-ID: <01c84056$16909b80$a62b0975@teinkemper> From: "Nguyen" To: Subject: Hey there Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:39:47 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hey you I was wondering if you wanted to maybe chat and exchange Pictures? I read your Profile online and you seem very intresting Email me at Shay@SimOldGlory.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. From adrianne@i-gts.com Sun Dec 16 23:41:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J47mm-0000x1-Ah for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:41:00 -0500 Received: from adsl-76-205-224-161.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net ([76.205.224.161]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J47ml-0003qf-Vf for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:41:00 -0500 Message-ID: <000601c84067$02aec81f$d4b636a1@vhouac> From: "alberik kasey" To: Subject: Breitling Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:53:36 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84067.02AB337E" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84067.02AB337E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design= =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Earings =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont = Fountain =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84067.02AB337E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design=

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Earings

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont Fountain
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84067.02AB337E-- From Nikonovcdv@aa-danmark.dk Mon Dec 17 02:05:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4A2b-0006Lz-6w for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:05:29 -0500 Received: from [218.235.35.95] (helo=[218.235.35.95]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4A2a-00067E-2n for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:05:28 -0500 Received: by 10.97.77.73 with SMTP id IPENhdnltGFYk; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:05:36 +0900 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.215.227 with SMTP id lvqYzbEoofAGgJ.5105744209587; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:05:34 +0900 (GMT) Message-ID: <9A071F6E.ACB25F24@aa-danmark.dk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:05:31 +0900 From: "Burke Nikonov" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: nipauqni Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010305050206060300020102" X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------010305050206060300020102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit make the most out of sex and have multiple orgasms everytime http://www.pubalobe.com/ --------------010305050206060300020102 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit make the most out of sex and have multiple orgasms everytime http://www.pubalobe.com/
--------------010305050206060300020102-- From marty@dtradelp.com Mon Dec 17 08:19:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4FsT-00040m-Ax; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:19:25 -0500 Received: from [124.82.107.84] (helo=82.124.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4FsS-0006Jy-1M; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:19:25 -0500 Received: from [124.82.107.84] by dtradelp.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:36:34 +0800 Message-ID: <01c840f4$e51add00$546b527c@marty> From: "Carmelo Boggs" To: Subject: Re: watch_Carmelo Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:36:34 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Christmas is around the corner, Buy your Gifts now and save time and money We carry everything you are looking for http://www.myultricibra.net From rmoregardless@extremeskins.com Mon Dec 17 16:03:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4N7K-0001RR-Te for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:03:14 -0500 Received: from e178147149.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.147.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4N7K-0008Qg-7V for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:03:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 4386 invoked from network); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:59:00 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO erman) (rmoregardless@extremeskins.com@198.23.180.48) by 9593b255extremeskins.com with SMTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:59:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c840f8$07c92930$0638eeac@erman> From: Lena To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ocurve Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:59:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C840F8.07C92930" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1106 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1081 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C840F8.07C92930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Concerned Citizen: Sure! Only it's going to be mighty dangerous : elaborat= e and painstaking make -up, photo manipulation through alive. Billy has drained the earth of power to create his ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C840F8.07C92930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

who talk a lot about terra-forming Mars and making it habitable.

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 797,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 28%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

architecture. I have recently experimented with the AutoCad
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C840F8.07C92930-- From ffutures@jth.com Mon Dec 17 16:06:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NAt-0004X6-VL for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:06:56 -0500 Received: from p54bc3578.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([84.188.53.120]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NAt-0000gB-6Q for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:06:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 75308 invoked from network); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:06:45 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO DannyLttge) (ffutures@jth.com@79.50.15.190) by 7835bc54jth.com with SMTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:06:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c840f9$1d09e040$06fe38b4@DannyLttge> From: facing To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: Have he provost Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:06:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C840F9.1D09E040" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.2869 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C840F9.1D09E040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable course I have been able to "go" all around the world. I have the blood allo= wing the body of society to function smoothly. = from your very eyes. Of course this, so call PROGRESS doesn't ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C840F9.1D09E040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

logic and are now becoming aware of this transformation and

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 792,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 27%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

segments like QuickTime files are attached to technical reports. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C840F9.1D09E040-- From cmvnMallari@meyerentsorgung.de Mon Dec 17 16:20:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NNs-0000Ma-3R for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:20:20 -0500 Received: from host29-92-dynamic.8-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.8.92.29]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NNr-0001Oq-Bq for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:20:19 -0500 Received: from daniele by meyerentsorgung.de with ASMTP id E67CDEE8 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:28:24 +0100 Received: from daniele ([169.197.50.89]) by meyerentsorgung.de with ESMTP id DE111442F811 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:28:24 +0100 Message-ID: <5693887D.E6A85D6F@meyerentsorgung.de> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:28:09 +0100 From: "cmvn Mallari" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: seretseu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Don't feel concerned about the size of your cock anymore! This medicine will add extra length to it! http://www.pvlds.com/ From Duncan.Ferrari@meyerentsorgung.de Mon Dec 17 16:23:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NQT-0002VX-7A for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:01 -0500 Received: from host29-92-dynamic.8-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.8.92.29]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NQS-0001Tb-KS for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:01 -0500 Received: from daniele ([103.154.77.40]:11523 "EHLO daniele" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host29-92-dynamic.8-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22XDNHCDTWLCAVQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:31:28 +0100 Message-ID: <64B5744D.E7BB744D@meyerentsorgung.de> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:30:53 +0100 From: "Duncan Ferrari" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: setkello Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080600070706060402010604" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------080600070706060402010604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With this medicine, you'll penetrate all the tightest asses in the town! Improve your cock and enjoy your new life. http://pympathy.com/ --------------080600070706060402010604 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With this medicine, you'll penetrate all the tightest asses in the
town! Improve your cock and enjoy your new life. http://pympathy.com/
--------------080600070706060402010604-- From stinkore@stadtwerkekoeln.de Mon Dec 17 20:56:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Rha-0001qG-RI for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:56:58 -0500 Received: from int-200-49-216-21.movi.com.ar ([200.49.216.21] helo=stadtwerkekoeln.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4RhZ-0000HP-Ti for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:56:58 -0500 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Rickey Terry" From: "Rickey Terry" Subject: foreveradv parquet To: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:49:47 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Watch ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGI Soar Tomorrow ( monday 17th Dec ) Symbol: ETGU Currently : .004 Big News is due out this week and trading volume is off the charts. People are loading up. Read the latest PR and find out what they know. You'll want to get in on SHTP too. Dont miss this chance to ride a multibagger. Add ETGU to your Radar and get in MONDAY before the news gets out. He's not quite alone. Neville patrols Fifth Avenue in his Mustang with Sam, a German Shepherd (also immune to the airborne virus), broadcasting into the void, then returning home to his Washington Square townhouse to put up the shutters before nightfall. The four additional vaccines are recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups. The new vaccines will be available for free for low-income families, and private insurers generally will cover the cost. The four additional vaccines are recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups. Clinton also emphasized that she did not intend to make Obama's onetime use of drugs an issue in the campaign. From Aslam.Herak@AIRFILTERS.com Mon Dec 17 21:20:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4S4P-0004IG-GH for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:20:33 -0500 Received: from [219.233.229.77] (helo=reserve.cableplus.com.cn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4S4K-0000u4-WF for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:20:31 -0500 Received: by 10.206.166.165 with SMTP id KhvuJCfNKjxzB; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:18:03 +0800 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.231.134 with SMTP id bNzPgFkjOmOeso.3623585824948; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:18:01 +0800 (GMT) Message-ID: <2310FFEC.2D30EC91@AIRFILTERS.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:17:58 +0800 From: "Aslam Herak" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: enimmilt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Unleash a penetration monster in your little "worm". Use the medicine and forget about penis problems. http://yesipharm.com/ From cornelius@stswithuns.com Mon Dec 17 22:40:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4TJQ-0007Ji-Fr for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:40:08 -0500 Received: from tx-71-51-48-94.dhcp.embarqhsd.net ([71.51.48.94]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4TJQ-0002Il-3O for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:40:08 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c84127$01e677c8$18e822b3@lpmajrr> From: "andonis soua" To: Subject: Hermes Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:52:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84127.01E0B89A" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84127.01E0B89A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Rolex Sports Models•Chanel•Jacob & = Co•Patek•Philippe =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Bracelets =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84127.01E0B89A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Rolex Sports = Models•Chanel•Jacob & Co•Patek•Philippe

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Bracelets

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84127.01E0B89A-- From luanalenkiewicz@nasar.com Tue Dec 18 02:42:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4X5e-0006tw-Ia for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:42:10 -0500 Received: from host48-6-dynamic.59-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([82.59.6.48] helo=host36-68-dynamic.3-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4X5d-0000Ev-Et for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:42:10 -0500 Received: from winxp-pc ([109.124.181.133]:27684 "EHLO winxp-pc" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host70-64-dynamic.26-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22CLVOWFQUQMWZH (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:43:57 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:43:22 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "luana lenkiewicz" Subject: stilpsfa Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Unleash a penetration monster in your little "worm". Use the medicine and forget about penis problems. http://good-quality-casting.com/ From Paulina_Faulkner@nasar.com Tue Dec 18 02:45:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4X8Z-0006ZE-RK for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:45:11 -0500 Received: from host48-6-dynamic.59-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([82.59.6.48] helo=host36-68-dynamic.3-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4X8Z-0000L2-4A for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 02:45:11 -0500 Received: by 10.84.12.213 with SMTP id RUXVaAMBsawpE; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:46:29 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.201.198 with SMTP id WHZCFHHVpVPJvo.5900746929737; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:46:27 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <0E2506D9.28BE0E7C@nasar.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:46:24 +0100 From: "Paulina Faulkner" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: stbackan Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Make your dick sick and dangerous! Upgrade it with these magical
pills. http://www.superlativequality.com/
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 18 15:48:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4j4i-00039T-58 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:30:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4iwJ-0003uD-W9 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:21:23 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4iqp-000O3T-SH for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:39 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-202.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [156.154.24.138] (helo=ns3.neustar.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4iqG-000O0h-4Q for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:23 +0000 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D141C175C5; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J4iqE-0005j4-9z; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt Message-Id: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:02 -0500 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks Author(s) : M. Shin, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2007-12-18 This document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. In this document we will discuss main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access networks and their differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-18141330.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-18141330.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From Luisiqg@tradeprintsupplies.co.uk Tue Dec 18 17:28:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4kvJ-00067i-Gy for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:28:25 -0500 Received: from bpa76.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.29.42.76] helo=bpl226.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4kvI-0001dn-Te for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:28:25 -0500 Received: from xxx-172ch5s95os ([170.123.94.116] helo=xxx-172ch5s95os) by bpl226.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1IMCWD-000ZQT-xa for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:29:01 +0100 Message-ID: <0BAEA057.CBE8CDEB@tradeprintsupplies.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:28:32 +0100 From: "Gerrod Luis" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: cederemo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Sick of your girl, whining about your short dick? Shut her mouth, by proving that your dick is a MONSTER. Only with this medicine you'll achieve your goal. http://schoolofmeds.com/ From najla11@yahoo.com Wed Dec 19 07:41:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4yEd-0008Lm-8w; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:41:15 -0500 Received: from [89.108.31.102] (helo=computer) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4yEZ-0000HZ-KV; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:41:15 -0500 Reply-To: From: "m7m7 نجلاء فتحي" Subject: في خدمتكم Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:41:10 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ba9b8496764663b12c333825fbf6b3d معلومة

معلومة                                                m3loma

 

نافذة للحياة العصرية

 

 

 

خدمة الأبراج اليومية

 

اشترك في القائمة البريدية مجانا لتصلكم نشرتنا " برجك اليوم "

 

من قسم سر الأبراج المفضل للعديد من مستخدمي الانترنت

 

 

معلومة . كوم

 

الموقع العربي الشامل

 

www.m3loma.com

 

منتدى معلومة : ملتقى الشباب والشابات العرب

 

اغاني – صور – كروت تهنئة – العاب – فيديو  

أزياء – رجيم – طبخ – تغذية   

تعارف – زواج – دردشة

 

شبكة إخبارية تحدث على مدار الساعة

 

نكت – شعر – موسوعات ثقافية وعلمية

 

خدماتنا لا حصر  لها تتوسع يوميا

 

في انتظاركم

-----

  

 

From shepherds@entrauchung.com Wed Dec 19 10:51:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51Ct-0000Nc-5F for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:51:39 -0500 Received: from pool-71-100-140-113.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.100.140.113] helo=jnilww) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51Cs-0005Ib-30 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:51:38 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c84255$45c12b80$0100007f@xoewn> From: "Lorenzo Henry" To: Subject: terrible Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:51:44 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 cialisviagravaliumxanaxunder$2perpill terrible valiumxanaxviagracialisunder$2perpill myrxtoday .com in Web Browser From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 19 11:30:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51o1-00016l-Aa for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:30:01 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51o1-0001Vm-1z for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:30:01 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J51j5-0006eR-2N for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:24:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J51j1-0006dy-Fi for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:24:53 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:720:410:1001:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:720:410:1001:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBJGOeFQ042766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:24:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist In-Reply-To: <894F7C7F-D2CE-41DF-BD82-4A4847387ED9@kurtis.pp.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Minutes from Vancouver Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:24:41 +0100 References: <894F7C7F-D2CE-41DF-BD82-4A4847387ED9@kurtis.pp.se> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c On 13 dec 2007, at 10:27, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > Please find attached the minutues from Vancouver. > - kurtis - As always, thanks to the note taker. In my presentation, I started to talk about NAT-PT as it exists today, then about Brian's SHANTI and finally about my draft which is about _modified_ NAT-PT, would it be possible to add the word "modified" or make this "MNAT-PT"? Iljitsch From DORENE.LANGREHR@agochattanooga.org Wed Dec 19 20:08:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J59tu-0006WZ-7v for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:08:38 -0500 Received: from [200.87.216.233] (helo=[200.87.216.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J59tt-0003fl-CK for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:08:38 -0500 Received: by 10.80.10.12 with SMTP id jQLtpcXNmAcxY; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:08:48 -0400 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.122.226 with SMTP id hpkzFsMyaYcPVZ.8413596010892; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:08:46 -0400 (GMT) Message-ID: <7F290289.DDE23841@agochattanooga.org> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:08:43 -0400 From: "DORENE LANGREHR" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: etsamboj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060502020201000707010107" X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------060502020201000707010107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't miss the chance to get your dick larger than ever http://cnxpcmi.com/ --------------060502020201000707010107 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't miss the chance to get your dick larger than ever http://cnxpcmi.com/
--------------060502020201000707010107-- From guangming712@agochattanooga.org Wed Dec 19 20:09:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J59uI-0006aX-VT for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:09:02 -0500 Received: from [200.87.216.233] (helo=[200.87.216.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J59uI-0003gU-3A for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:09:02 -0500 Received: from pc005 ([118.107.23.130]:26429 "EHLO pc005" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [200.87.216.233] with ESMTP id S22MJDXMBUTWCFVA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:09:25 -0400 Message-ID: <228B8CA3.5FE1C9D1@agochattanooga.org> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:09:08 -0400 From: "guangming Kettunen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: etopmoc0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Girls like their boys long and thick, upsize your dick today http://www.findmetwenty.com/
From lorne862@ACSCOM.RU Thu Dec 20 00:21:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Dqw-0004W4-SR for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:21:50 -0500 Received: from bb219-74-231-103.singnet.com.sg ([219.74.231.103] helo=bbcache-88.singnet.com.sg) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Dqv-0000G2-0k for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:21:49 -0500 Received: from your-3e4abdebb8 ([139.176.70.193] helo=your-3e4abdebb8) by bbcache-88.singnet.com.sg ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1PvgiG-000UIC-Ka for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:31:34 -0800 Message-ID: <443B509F.3D10AA35@ACSCOM.RU> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:31:16 -0800 From: "lorne blackwood" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: luftceff Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040203080408040206080202" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------040203080408040206080202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maxmize, elongate and upgrade your dick http://maraderra.com/ --------------040203080408040206080202 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maxmize, elongate and upgrade your dick http://maraderra.com/
--------------040203080408040206080202-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 06:36:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5JhQ-0003N1-LU for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:36:24 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5JhO-0006VC-Td for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:36:24 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5JaJ-0009GC-3d for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:29:03 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5JaD-0009Fa-Jw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:29:00 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:720:410:1001:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:720:410:1001:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBKBSmFl061213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:28:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian Carpenter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Merge NAT-PT approaches? Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:28:49 +0100 Cc: IPv6 Operations X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Hi Brian (and others), The NAT-PT discussion pretty much stopped after the v6ops session two weeks ago. So let me kick it in gear again: I think it would be useful to merge our approaches. Mine has the benefit that the changes are minimal on the host side and changes on the NAT-PT box side are probably unnecessary for a large subset of all possible communications. Your approach has the advantage that it can provide a complete solution for pretty much every type of communication, including a decent chunk that probably can't even be supported by IPv4 NAT. So what I'm thinking is that we come up with something where hosts do A record lookups but otherwise use NAT-PT pretty much the way it is today. I've had some private feedback on anycast, so I'm thinking the top 96 bits would come from either direct manual configuration or they are obtained from a magic DNS name in the domain that the host has learned through manual configuration or DHCP. The shim approach would then kick in when the host needs to do more advanced communication, for instance, when it needs to know or set the source address / source port, it needs incoming connections or when there needs to be authentication from the host towards the NAT-PT gateway. We probably want to define some API that applications can use to invoke the above but also IPv6 firewall traversal for regular IPv6 connectivity. (Unless there already is an API we can reuse?) Iljitsch From nona7loa@yahoo.com Thu Dec 20 16:54:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5TLi-0002pV-Dl; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:54:38 -0500 Received: from [90.148.151.11] (helo=windows) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5TL2-0004FV-Ap; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:54:38 -0500 Reply-To: From: "m7m7 رانية" Subject: المنتدى العصري Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:54:03 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 76319d6f172f4cd0a083860f80065cd1 m3loma

معلومة

 

M3loma

هدفنا

توعية المجتمع العربي

 

 

 

 

تفسير الأحلام

 

 

سر الأبراج

 

 

عروض أزياء

 

 

أغاني

 

 

العاب فلاش

 

 

فيديو كليب

 

 

صور و كروت تهنئة

 

 

 الطب الشعبي

 

 

ثقافة جنسية

 

 

سيارات

 

 

رجيم وطبخ

 

 

شبكة اخبارية عربية

 

 

أفلام فيديو

 

 

تنزيل برامج

 

 

شعر وأدب

 

 

طرائف ونكت

 

 

 دليل مواقع

 

www.m3loma.com

معلومة.كوم : نافذة للحياة العصرية

 

 

"منتدى معلومة"

 

ملتقى الشباب والشابات من كافة الوطن العربي

 

منتدى الشباب والمستقبل

 

منتدى الحوار العام

 

منتدى الشعر والروايات

 

منتدى الكمبيوتر والانترنت

 

منتدى عالم حواء

 

منتدى التغذية والرجيم

 

منتدى الديكور والازياء

 

منتدى النكت والطرائف

 

منتدى الالعاب والمسابقات

 

منتدى الصور والغرائب

 

منتدى السياحة والسفر

 

 

منتدى الثقافة الجنسية

 

منتدى الفن والفنانين

 

 

 

بالإضافة إلى العديد من الأقسام المفيدة

 

معلومة.كوم

 

www.m3loma.com

 

 

Email :  info@tasweak.com                 Website : www.tasweak.com

This is not spam massage

Your email opted -in our mailing list

To un subscribes from the mailing list click here لإلغاء اسمك من القائمة البريدية – اضغط

 

 

 

From adolphus@syssrc.com Thu Dec 20 22:51:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Yv9-0004UD-2x for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:51:35 -0500 Received: from [59.93.131.31] (helo=59.93.131.31) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Yv3-0003xo-07 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:51:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:03:06 +0000 From: "Romano" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.99.27) UNREG X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <09272070.20071221035028@ietf.org> To: Subject: Fw: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="CD969111C5CA164" X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --CD969111C5CA164 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you've ever tried to quit smoking before and failed, there's still = hope! It doesn't matter whether you've only been smoking a few weeks, or = if you've smoked for decades. LiveFree is an all natural anti smoking = patch that WILL WORK for you!..read more --CD969111C5CA164 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you've ever tried to quit smoking before and failed, there's still = hope! It doesn't matter whether you've only been smoking a few weeks, or = if you've smoked for decades. LiveFree is an all natural anti smoking = patch that WILL WORK for you!.. read more --CD969111C5CA164-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 22:53:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Ywp-0006L8-Jw for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:53:19 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Ywo-0003QD-3x for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:53:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5Yr9-00082p-QJ for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:47:27 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.185] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5Yr5-00082N-F2 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:47:26 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so135493rvf.41 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QfheHq0KlA9tdsm/uIieh0/RTkwW2iVKbh6mE6caPX4=; b=j+ZKatvG/7tBvgEuke1jtlGBRGSqPD5bNH1PHnEnOnKX8hNo1wk53zPOe6cdPjdpNuv07WuCPFmSgkoCFCASmsMQ4Yjev99RxPLH9fbJZk3q8tBYTYLSkegTpnwzU/xF6KjeecPyFdwS9ScQ0H4iqt3b9Gjvx1kj/aBF2KWF7gY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Qw+4fVliHWHbVnvZlbYYIcSQ5YvSQGYpC6MkDw0nh86gt8sLuOPCmUZrk9d0OrOdPruFx9doQ0tH2qT3cIBFdueA2PmCM5xYXrVFYKFru6C6nXUexCEsuELqNrAUIvYyBIq9pNVimBUt6W9/MNv292XTsFDkq8KrRnAIRzmNlxc= Received: by 10.140.133.16 with SMTP id g16mr466838rvd.231.1198208841508; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [118.92.11.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c3sm892884rvf.32.2007.12.20.19.47.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:47:11 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 I'm sympathetic to the idea. Bringing in the shim action only when it's actually needed sounds good in principle. The devil is in the details, of course, but we can investigate that off-list if people would like us to follow this up. (Due to the midsummer break where I now live, I won't be on line so much for the next ten days.) Brian On 2007-12-21 00:28, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Hi Brian (and others), > > The NAT-PT discussion pretty much stopped after the v6ops session two > weeks ago. So let me kick it in gear again: > > I think it would be useful to merge our approaches. Mine has the benefit > that the changes are minimal on the host side and changes on the NAT-PT > box side are probably unnecessary for a large subset of all possible > communications. Your approach has the advantage that it can provide a > complete solution for pretty much every type of communication, including > a decent chunk that probably can't even be supported by IPv4 NAT. > > So what I'm thinking is that we come up with something where hosts do A > record lookups but otherwise use NAT-PT pretty much the way it is today. > I've had some private feedback on anycast, so I'm thinking the top 96 > bits would come from either direct manual configuration or they are > obtained from a magic DNS name in the domain that the host has learned > through manual configuration or DHCP. > > The shim approach would then kick in when the host needs to do more > advanced communication, for instance, when it needs to know or set the > source address / source port, it needs incoming connections or when > there needs to be authentication from the host towards the NAT-PT gateway. > > We probably want to define some API that applications can use to invoke > the above but also IPv6 firewall traversal for regular IPv6 > connectivity. (Unless there already is an API we can reuse?) > > Iljitsch > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 21 02:59:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5cnF-0002xg-Ja for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:59:41 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5cnE-0000es-4A for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:59:41 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5chz-000JZ2-Fh for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:54:15 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [82.195.230.222] (helo=tarsus.bollow.ch) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5chc-000JY6-Fd for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:54:03 +0000 Received: from tarsus.bollow.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tarsus.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D0DB2841F for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:39:32 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: tarsus.bollow.ch from=nb@bollow.ch; domainkey=neutral (no signature; no policy for bollow.ch) Received: from quill.bollow.ch (107-38.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch [81.62.38.107]) by tarsus.bollow.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:39:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by quill.bollow.ch (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E533D220285; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:02:22 +0100 (CET) From: Norbert Bollow Organization: Bollow Software Economics Research MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org In-reply-to: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> (message from Brian E Carpenter on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:47:11 +1300) Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? References: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> Message-Id: <20071221080222.E533D220285@quill.bollow.ch> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:02:22 +0100 (CET) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I'm sympathetic to the idea. Bringing in the shim action > only when it's actually needed sounds good in principle. > The devil is in the details, of course, but we can > investigate that off-list if people would like us > to follow this up. I'm very much in favor of the topic of better variants of NAT-PT being considered from all angles, and would personally prefer on-list discussion of the details (or at least Cc: me please :-) Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org From Mikusae_Marsland@may-tech.com.tw Fri Dec 21 03:37:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5dNM-0005RM-Hs for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:37:00 -0500 Received: from [151.57.30.109] (helo=[151.57.30.109]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5dNJ-0002d3-ET for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:36:59 -0500 Received: from sandro-7d2848da by may-tech.com.tw with ASMTP id 0B1535AC for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:37:20 +0100 Received: from sandro-7d2848da ([182.196.65.4]) by may-tech.com.tw with ESMTP id 54DAFA31F2F9 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:37:20 +0100 Message-ID: <5116E43D.850FB0E0@may-tech.com.tw> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:36:58 +0100 From: "Mikusae Marsland" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: etoineen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080708060406040004050302" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------080708060406040004050302 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tired of penis pumps and nonsense remedies that don't work? Here is the miracle you've always waited for http://www.qorigt.com/ --------------080708060406040004050302 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tired of penis pumps and nonsense remedies that don't work? Here is
the miracle you've always waited for http://www.qorigt.com/
--------------080708060406040004050302-- From polakqm@bonuscardshop.com Fri Dec 21 09:02:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5iSE-0006aK-OE; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:02:22 -0500 Received: from eu85-85-8-37.clientes.euskaltel.es ([85.85.8.37] helo=jc.euskaltel.es) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5iSD-0008Hk-Uq; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:02:22 -0500 Received: from [85.85.8.37] by mailser.garanti.com.tr; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:02:20 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:02:20 +0100 From: "Fernandez" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.6) Personal Reply-To: polakqm@bonuscardshop.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <635184936.16923479160689@bonuscardshop.com> To: syslog@lists.ietf.org Subject: Where is that picture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Hey Baby I saw your profile on-line just a few minutes ago Email me at Dani@SimOldGlory.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. Maybe we can chat today? From adnbvghh@hotmail.com Fri Dec 21 09:17:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5igk-0004vN-HM; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:17:22 -0500 Received: from [87.230.128.162] (helo=0bbf922fc14942a) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5igQ-0002d0-6l; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:17:22 -0500 From: "m7m7 هيفاء وهبي" Subject: مفاجاة عام 2008 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:16:53 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d9da51c9fdb90403a7d571fc0f0dbf29 m3loma

نيو بوب

NeW PoP

 

 

 

www.new-pop.com

 

 

هدفنا

ترفيه الاولاد والبنات

الشباب والشابات

 

 

 

اغرب لقطات الفيديو كليب

ننفرد بلقطات فيديو تبين الاعجاز الالهي

لقطات مثيرة وممتعة للفنانين والفنانات  

موقع نيو بوب الترفيهي

اكبر موقع عربي على الانترنت

 

 

" قمة المتعة والترفيه "

 

 

تم افتتاح موقع نيو بوب الترفيهي  للصغار والكبار

 

 

مجموعة ضخمة من العاب الفلاش

 

العاب اكشن – العاب قتالية – العاب مغامرات – العاب بنات – العاب ماريو

 

 

مجموعة ضخمة من افلام الفيديو كليب الترفيهي

 

فيديوحوادث وغرائب – فيديو طرائف – فيديو رياضة وسيارات – فيديو تعليمي

 

 

مجموعة ضخمة من الصور الغريبة والعجيبة

   

 

 

This is not spam massage

Your email opted -in tasweak mailing list

To un subscribes from the mailing list click here لإلغاء اسمك من القائمة البريدية – اضغط

 

 

 

From pdqd@boltek.com Fri Dec 21 09:48:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5jAy-00078f-38; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:48:36 -0500 Received: from [88.239.146.196] (helo=[88.239.146.196]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5jAx-0000bM-4R; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:48:36 -0500 Received: from [88.239.146.196] by mx1.vaxxine.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:48:34 +0200 Message-ID: <01c843f1$53131d00$c492ef58@pdqd> From: "Warner" To: Subject: Where is that picture Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:48:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4963.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4963.1700 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Hey Baby I saw your profile on-line just a few minutes ago Email me at Dani@SimOldGlory.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. Maybe we can chat today? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 21 11:20:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kbw-0007SD-1q for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:20:32 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kbu-0002ry-Do for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:20:32 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5kX9-00012D-E5 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:15:35 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-202.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [156.154.16.158] (helo=ns0.neustar.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5kWd-0000zO-K3 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:15:20 +0000 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3691A3289C; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kWc-0002fr-3v; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:15:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt Message-Id: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:15:02 -0500 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks Author(s) : M. Shin, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2007-12-21 This document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. In this document we will discuss main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access networks and their differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-21104803.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-21104803.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 21 14:14:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5nKG-0007ma-02 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:14:28 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5nKF-0006zd-I5 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:14:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5nGc-000GBK-CL for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:10:42 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-202.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [156.154.24.139] (helo=ns4.neustar.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5nG3-000G87-6Q for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:10:26 +0000 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns4.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4C02AC98; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:10:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J5nFx-0003Vp-Tp; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:10:01 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt Message-Id: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:10:01 -0500 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service Author(s) : J. Woodyatt Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2007-12-21 This document makes specific recommendations to the makers of devices that provide "simple security" capabilities at the perimeter of local-area IPv6 networks in Internet-enabled homes and small offices. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-21140808.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-21140808.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From cutwrightbilrw@jimmiehatz.com Fri Dec 21 21:47:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5uON-0000s4-HT for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:47:11 -0500 Received: from host40-210-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.2.210.40] helo=host106-132-dynamic.7-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5uOM-0002Zn-RT for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:47:11 -0500 Received: by 10.100.209.198 with SMTP id bCdhChykPuzSp; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:47:19 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.50.66 with SMTP id yWZFcIdvGOvkvH.7691120182839; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:47:17 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:47:14 +0100 From: "Jari cutwright" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: nnufmasy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000602010300020404010106" X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------000602010300020404010106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enhance your sex life, the easy way today http://husdats.com/ --------------000602010300020404010106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enhance your sex life, the easy way today http://husdats.com/
--------------000602010300020404010106-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 22 04:02:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J60F9-0001pO-K4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:02:03 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J60F8-0001Wt-TX for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:02:03 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J609X-000274-48 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:56:15 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [60.234.76.2] (helo=unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J609U-00026k-1L for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:56:13 +0000 Received: from madison.local (unknown [203.118.181.232]) by unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6CE273E5; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:56:09 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from localhost by madison.local (PGP Universal service); Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:56:09 +1300 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by madison.local on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:56:09 +1300 Message-Id: <3F989A52-88D6-416A-A4D4-F6417638B6E2@daork.net> From: Nathan Ward To: v6ops WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Teredo server selection Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:56:06 +1300 Cc: Joe Abley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-PGP-Encoding-Format: Partitioned X-PGP-Encoding-Version: 2.0.2 X-Content-PGP-Universal-Saved-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-PGP-Universal-Saved-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Folks, I'm looking at my server selection stuff for Teredo again, and have been looking at ways to get around the (political) problems of having a well known name. My current thinking is, why not have a well known DNS name, but it is NOT globally available. The server discovery procedure would be something like: 1) Lookup A record for `_teredo._udp.arpa.' (or whatever. Note the trailing . - we don't want to be looking up `_teredo._udp.arpa.defaultdomain' etc.) 2) If there is an NXDOMAIN response, the well known anycasted server address is used. (hard coded, I'm afraid) 3) If there is a NOERROR response pointing to a valid Teredo server, this is used. 4) If there is any other RCODE, Teredo is not attempted. I thought about SRV, but having a dynamic port seems to render little benefit (that I can see), as Teredo relays wanting to use servers to open holes in restricted NATs would be expecting the server to be listening on the standard port. I didn't consider security, because blocking the Teredo port in order to block Teredo implies a default-allow policy when attempting to block tunnelling technologies, which seems unlikely, or silly enough that it deserves to be broken :-) Does this sound like a good compromise? I'm open to reasoning for the usage of SRV. Something I have been considering is that prefixes that servers advertise in RA messages are to be unique to that server or server "cluster", as opposed to being built from the well known anycast address. This perhaps takes some of the concern away where users would be unable to detect what server they are using, and it gets around any potential problems with strict mode RPF+anycast. However, it means that a host would get a new address every time the routing changed sufficiently enough to push them towards a new Teredo server. Something I am considering to solve that is if the client gets an RA that does not match the server address they are trying to use, that they temporarily re-configure to use the new server address based on that RA, and try again. Thoughts? Is that too hard, now that client implementations are in place? I don't expect that it would break backwards compatibility - it would just mean that older clients reconfigure if routing changes too much. - -- Nathan Ward -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.7.0 (Build 867) Charset: US-ASCII wsBVAwUBR2zRKahXB4ariYS3AQhDYggAnYzN/XnLvPEn7q7aFusPi4czBhGIgQMb /weIRrojdF3TTNHMVByrQJuqm8nkkcSvyS8IfC/wsK368i1C2x+mf+xfeFAqmMqA gg6iIUOTgFObNM5M7Fa5+Bx115Wc+ztjMGkLYMkL8+m1TeOSWg1kQ6B2WdOidrzp lhvkKeruTZeeBI2carg+b0qiHv7zkJP2JzC5kv0tyP1qz0TPXh+hCveiOq0wckHz I5Dl5kNJeW/wSALbZ0EGi+rVhQr0bPt5dkg4klyeItl9Bb88GK2yX4195xobiY29 zyPyzrkYr2y9zghpAKAcszytoeW7hxuv+iakvBUNwaWcVK7+SoFJHQ== =JYxc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Darren859@stetter.org Sat Dec 22 07:03:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J634S-000733-Nm for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:03:12 -0500 Received: from [189.24.1.107] (helo=18924001107.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J634S-00064W-0Q for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:03:12 -0500 Received: from vithor by stetter.org with ASMTP id 31515939 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:03:23 -0300 Received: from vithor ([134.129.63.175]) by stetter.org with ESMTP id FC857DE14389 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:03:23 -0300 Message-ID: <3E6345D4.CAB20191@stetter.org> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:03:08 -0300 From: "Darren Antoniuk" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: rerabbor Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000603080004020004080503" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------000603080004020004080503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Betterment your sexual life and the size of your cock as well. You'll find detailed instructions and medicine below: http://www.viotiener.com/ --------------000603080004020004080503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Betterment your sexual life and the size of your cock as well. You'll
find detailed instructions and medicine below: http://www.viotiener.com/
--------------000603080004020004080503-- From akstcadvinformaticamnsdgs@advinformatica.com Sat Dec 22 07:25:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J63QL-0004ml-2c; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:25:49 -0500 Received: from p6077-ipad01matsue.shimane.ocn.ne.jp ([219.160.244.77] helo=sinya-6jb7csh89) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J63QI-0005jb-0x; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:25:49 -0500 Received: from [219.160.244.77] by mail.advinformatica.com; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:32:10 +0900 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:32:10 +0900 From: "Josiah Faulkner" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.01) Business Reply-To: akstcadvinformaticamnsdgs@advinformatica.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <084465714.80817984337053@advinformatica.com> To: sigtran-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Brand Name Top Designer Shoes Boots and High Heels Gucci Prada Chanel & More MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Finally, the 2008 Collections are in, enjoy 70% OFF Brand Name Shoes & Boots
for Men & Women from TOP Fashion Designers. Choose from a variety of the season's
hottest models from Gucci, Prada, Chanel, Dior, Ugg Boots, Burberry, D&G, Dsquared &
much more. VISIT Now and Save TODAY! Free International Shipping on ALL ORDERS!

CLICK HERE

Now That's an AMAZING DEAL! From akstcalshevskiymnsdgs@alshevskiy.com Sat Dec 22 08:42:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J64cU-0000if-L7; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:42:26 -0500 Received: from 51.227.218.222.broad.gg.gx.dynamic.163data.com.cn ([222.218.227.51] helo=00-3pmvlr7b1usz) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J64cQ-0007Fs-4L; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:42:26 -0500 Received: from [222.218.227.51] by alshevskiy.com; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:48:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:48:48 -0500 From: "Levi Skinner" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.51) Educational Reply-To: akstcalshevskiymnsdgs@alshevskiy.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <250431326.95468678859305@alshevskiy.com> To: speermint@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Free Shipping on all Designer Footwear from Chanel Gucci Prada Dior Ugg MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Finally, the 2008 Collections are in, enjoy 70% OFF Brand Name Shoes & Boots
for Men & Women from TOP Fashion Designers. Choose from a variety of the season's
hottest models from Gucci, Prada, Chanel, Dior, Ugg Boots, Burberry, D&G, Dsquared &
much more. VISIT Now and Save TODAY! Free International Shipping on ALL ORDERS!

CLICK HERE

Now That's an AMAZING DEAL! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 22 10:15:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6648-0007cl-ER for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:15:04 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6646-0000Yl-3A for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:15:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J65yZ-000737-1a for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:09:19 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-200.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FH_HAS_XAIMC, RDNS_NONE,USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.99.23.227] (helo=people.com.cn) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J65y2-00070Y-4c for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:09:03 +0000 Received: from people.com.cn([127.0.0.1]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm5476d688e; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:22:00 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm6c47688f1d; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:20:59 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id AISP action; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:20:59 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4iqN-0001gI-A7; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:11 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4iqF-0001eg-NR for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:03 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4iqF-0001vi-A9 for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:03 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D141C175C5; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J4iqE-0005j4-9z; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:15:02 -0500 X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org X-Auto-Forward: jaglee@people.com.cn jag@kw.com.cn Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks Author(s) : M. Shin, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2007-12-18 This document provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment and integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. In this document we will discuss main components of IPv6 IEEE 802.16 access networks and their differences from IPv4 IEEE 802.16 networks and how IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of the IEEE 802.16 technologies. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-18141330.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-802-16-deployment-scenarios-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-18141330.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce --NextPart-- From leopold.Lewalk@pcwiesbaden.de Sat Dec 22 10:36:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J66P6-0004mX-WD for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:36:45 -0500 Received: from acpe157.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.10.210.157] helo=acqj72.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J66P6-0003Ih-Bw for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:36:44 -0500 Received: from urbi-8aqb6yzepa ([137.109.161.68]:19863 "EHLO urbi-8aqb6yzepa" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by acqj146.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl with ESMTP id S22JSYWSGTMPTHOY (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:37:09 +0100 Message-ID: <869F5DC9.3B075479@pcwiesbaden.de> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:36:53 +0100 From: "leopold Lewalk" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: assemsar Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 She moans louder and loves sex so much now that i have gained 3 full
inches! http://www.yuhhutu.com/
From ajqyosokpv@botcorp.com Sat Dec 22 17:34:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6Cux-0003vt-Ua; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:34:03 -0500 Received: from a81-84-27-170.cpe.netcabo.pt ([81.84.27.170] helo=c56ed35c624a462.netcabo.pt) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6Cuw-0005mT-UH; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:34:03 -0500 Received: from [81.84.27.170] by mail.botcorp.com; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:34:02 +0000 From: "Kurtis Clarke" To: Subject: Re: bigpenKurtis Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: <01c844ea$c056a900$aa1b5451@ajqyosokpv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Now helping men everywhere much faster and safer. http://www.wuandfiddle.com of the best practices From sovannara_Maagdeleyn@ozdag.com Sat Dec 22 17:43:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6D4Q-0007Og-Uk for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:43:50 -0500 Received: from adaq209.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.11.252.209]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6D4Q-00061e-Bo for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:43:50 -0500 Received: from borcz ([117.192.4.13] helo=borcz) by adaq209.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1tPuLT-000SYA-qL for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:44:06 +0100 Message-ID: <138546CB.4AB9221A@ozdag.com> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:43:48 +0100 From: "sovannara Maagdeleyn" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: absolvin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020200030105000808040705" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071222-0, 2007-12-22), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------020200030105000808040705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't feel uncomfortable when you show a girl your cock. Increase his length to double! Use our unique medicine http://www.moeias.com/ --------------020200030105000808040705 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't feel uncomfortable when you show a girl your cock. Increase his
length to double! Use our unique medicine http://www.moeias.com/
--------------020200030105000808040705-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 22 17:55:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6DFE-00045h-20 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:55:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6DFC-0001xW-MW for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:55:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6D9d-000LnG-No for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:49:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [212.9.189.167] (helo=mail.enyo.de) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6D9a-000Lmk-VA for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:49:12 +0000 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1J6D9U-0008LX-At; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:49:04 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J6Cpu-00032h-Td; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:28:50 +0100 From: Florian Weimer To: Nathan Ward Cc: v6ops WG , Joe Abley Subject: Re: Teredo server selection References: <3F989A52-88D6-416A-A4D4-F6417638B6E2@daork.net> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:28:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3F989A52-88D6-416A-A4D4-F6417638B6E2@daork.net> (Nathan Ward's message of "Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:56:06 +1300") Message-ID: <87ve6q4b4t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de * Nathan Ward: > 1) Lookup A record for `_teredo._udp.arpa.' (or whatever. Note the > trailing . - we don't want to be looking up > `_teredo._udp.arpa.defaultdomain' etc.) You should really discuss this with DNS people. This is a very bad idea because it produces lots of pointless queries which need to be handled somewhere, probably on a production name server. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 22 19:48:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6F0m-0002iA-Em for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:48:12 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6F0m-0003w9-4E for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:48:12 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6Exh-0003b2-Nj for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:45:01 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [60.234.76.2] (helo=unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6Exd-0003aO-Vk for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:45:00 +0000 Received: from madison.local (unknown [203.118.181.232]) by unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D0A27525; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:44:56 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from localhost by madison.local (PGP Universal service); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:44:56 +1300 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by madison.local on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:44:56 +1300 Cc: v6ops WG , Joe Abley Message-Id: <1879B202-6301-4BFE-9F34-6634FA47F646@daork.net> From: Nathan Ward To: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <87ve6q4b4t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Teredo server selection Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:44:48 +1300 References: <3F989A52-88D6-416A-A4D4-F6417638B6E2@daork.net> <87ve6q4b4t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-PGP-Encoding-Format: Partitioned X-PGP-Encoding-Version: 2.0.2 X-Content-PGP-Universal-Saved-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-PGP-Universal-Saved-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23/12/2007, at 11:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Nathan Ward: > >> 1) Lookup A record for `_teredo._udp.arpa.' (or whatever. Note the >> trailing . - we don't want to be looking up >> `_teredo._udp.arpa.defaultdomain' etc.) > > You should really discuss this with DNS people. This is a very bad > idea > because it produces lots of pointless queries which need to be handled > somewhere, probably on a production name server. You are talking about the use of .arpa, I assume, and query load on the root servers? I think I understand the concern, but negative caching would deal with this, same as it does for .local., .invalid., etc. The negative TTL on both .arpa and . is 86400s. We're only talking about 1 query each time the Teredo client boots, so load on ISPs' recursive nameservers is not large - my laptop does several queries per minute when idle, let alone at boot time or when it's actively doing something. - -- Nathan Ward -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.7.0 (Build 867) Charset: US-ASCII wsBVAwUBR22vh6hXB4ariYS3AQi5aAgAnOxv00YtEtUxHUs7kdyGBHZYxwrVwvOM mIi3rZUEZQ3zqQeTkOmUP2mN8BxfVYWqFsEjZD1mUYlf1uggRc4xC7AJ6qSdZLVU ngdr1FwO3VCzOIiIcuyZ3Yd1EeGo+nccK609gTA/OAIMfnhWgzaFpZAfOuMapC20 J/UuMLZo9jolbCGu8MI1igY2Rgv8KkdpaouYQra7CXiZqs/GEJ+ezs2VMrGekbCz kJ+MkKKZNqtYJdaSujjREE0gp7M5ov8TItM3Y9fMaRWblzDXISsmE7dHfFfFYjXH b2FWJGzx04/aOUoeYkY8kzfm+nH3rLUqfeGMblCIXkuYCXicadOstw== =cOe3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 23 05:39:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6OEb-0005u0-My for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:39:05 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6OEb-0001zz-9u for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:39:05 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6O8q-000MtU-Bd for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:33:08 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [207.219.45.62] (helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6O8n-000Mt4-Iz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:33:06 +0000 Received: from [10.1.7.90] (helo=[10.1.7.90]) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1J6O8j-0002kf-Kp; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:33:01 -0500 Message-ID: <476E3956.1090103@ca.afilias.info> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:32:54 -0500 From: Brian Dickson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathan Ward CC: Florian Weimer , v6ops WG , Joe Abley Subject: Re: Teredo server selection References: <3F989A52-88D6-416A-A4D4-F6417638B6E2@daork.net> <87ve6q4b4t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1879B202-6301-4BFE-9F34-6634FA47F646@daork.net> In-Reply-To: <1879B202-6301-4BFE-9F34-6634FA47F646@daork.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: briand@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 Nathan Ward wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 23/12/2007, at 11:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Nathan Ward: >> >> >>> 1) Lookup A record for `_teredo._udp.arpa.' (or whatever. Note the >>> trailing . - we don't want to be looking up >>> `_teredo._udp.arpa.defaultdomain' etc.) >>> >> You should really discuss this with DNS people. This is a very bad >> idea >> because it produces lots of pointless queries which need to be handled >> somewhere, probably on a production name server. >> > > > You are talking about the use of .arpa, I assume, and query load on > the root servers? > > I think I understand the concern, but negative caching would deal with > this, same as it does for .local., .invalid., etc. The negative TTL on > both .arpa and . is 86400s. > The default maximum negative cache TTL for BIND9 is 3 hours (10800s). This overrides the negative TTL on any zone with longer TTL. (*Relying* on negative caching as a key part of any design, is a *bad* idea.) > We're only talking about 1 query each time the Teredo client boots, This would be 1 query per day per Windows box, roughly. Okay, maybe not *every* day, but often enough, like on Patch Tuesday, every Windows box reboots at roughly the same time, and generates one query. > so > load on ISPs' recursive nameservers is not large - my laptop does > several queries per minute when idle, let alone at boot time or when > it's actively doing something. > What about the case where hosts have been set up with local recursive servers (i.e. on the host itself)? Those would *all* hit the root and TLD server(s) for .arpa. in each such instance (host reboots). Besides which, I don't understand why this *shouldn't* be something locally instantiated, if it is supported by the ISP. Something like, "teredo.defaultdomain", by looking up "teredo" with no trailing dot. I'm wondering why it is even necessary to do any of this set-up, before starting an application that actually wants/needs Teredo service. I don't know what the proportion of hosts with Teredo enabled, which actually *use* it is -- but if it is substantially less than 100%, I think the operational impact to Teredo potentially interfering with native IPv6, should be given strong consideration. The coding convenience of "do this when we boot" is not a strong argument in favour of any particular approach, when "do this" involves Internet-wide interactions. Brian From delvoye@comnet-dd.de Sun Dec 23 06:34:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6P67-00024e-JF for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:34:23 -0500 Received: from [88.238.126.10] (helo=dsl88.238-32266.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6P66-0000tO-Tx for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:34:23 -0500 Received: from hasan by comnet-dd.de with ASMTP id 6AC6B482 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:34:57 +0200 Received: from hasan ([149.189.67.73]) by comnet-dd.de with ESMTP id F2C5EFBF58ED for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:34:57 +0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:34:38 +0200 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "Mfgfhg delvoye" Subject: teartrop Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Super size the package in your pants, and watch the women scream with joy http://kjiassite.com/ From ymyj@brandcomm.co.uk Sun Dec 23 07:18:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6Pmm-0000Gw-AV; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:18:28 -0500 Received: from [84.255.188.142] (helo=user-abd50e1578) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6Pmk-0001hq-NU; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:18:27 -0500 Received: from [84.255.188.142] by lon-gs3dmrelay.mistral.net; , 23 Dec 2007 15:18:25 +0300 Date: , 23 Dec 2007 15:18:25 +0300 From: "Keith Ward" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.8) Personal Reply-To: ymyj@brandcomm.co.uk X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <723273293.08338353611298@brandcomm.co.uk> To: urn-nid-web-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Re: BOOK2WORD MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 All Med*s onsale 100% safe and fast shipping http://geocities.com/valduhi283 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 23 07:19:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6PnL-00016w-B3 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:19:03 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6PnJ-0003NN-4n for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:19:03 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6Pk9-0004jz-Sl for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:15:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [212.9.189.167] (helo=mail.enyo.de) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J6Pk4-0004jE-7f for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:15:41 +0000 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1J6Pjz-0000AN-Hb; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:15:35 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J6Pjv-0002Jb-0D; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:15:31 +0100 From: Florian Weimer To: Nathan Ward Cc: v6ops WG , Joe Abley Subject: Re: Teredo server selection References: <3F989A52-88D6-416A-A4D4-F6417638B6E2@daork.net> <87ve6q4b4t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1879B202-6301-4BFE-9F34-6634FA47F646@daork.net> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:15:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1879B202-6301-4BFE-9F34-6634FA47F646@daork.net> (Nathan Ward's message of "Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:44:48 +1300") Message-ID: <87odchfvz1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 * Nathan Ward: > On 23/12/2007, at 11:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Nathan Ward: >> >>> 1) Lookup A record for `_teredo._udp.arpa.' (or whatever. Note the >>> trailing . - we don't want to be looking up >>> `_teredo._udp.arpa.defaultdomain' etc.) >> >> You should really discuss this with DNS people. This is a very bad >> idea >> because it produces lots of pointless queries which need to be handled >> somewhere, probably on a production name server. > You are talking about the use of .arpa, I assume, and query load on > the root servers? Yes, but the issue will not be much different if you use any other zone. > I think I understand the concern, but negative caching would deal with > this, same as it does for .local., .invalid., etc. The negative TTL on > both .arpa and . is 86400s. This doesn't work too well in practice, unfortunately. > We're only talking about 1 query each time the Teredo client boots, so > load on ISPs' recursive nameservers is not large - my laptop does > several queries per minute when idle, let alone at boot time or when > it's actively doing something. Huh? Why don't you have to requery when you suspect your network environment has changed, or when you no longer can reach the Toredo server (for an extended period of time)? From jianfeng@wzpol.pl Sun Dec 23 14:22:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6WPQ-0004Ix-SK for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:22:48 -0500 Received: from [88.242.38.196] (helo=dsl88.242-50762.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6WPQ-00029C-7n for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:22:48 -0500 Received: from pc-50d3c545b80e ([178.120.118.142]:32716 "EHLO pc-50d3c545b80e" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by dsl88.242-50762.ttnet.net.tr with ESMTP id S22YPWHLWUEWJTDQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:23:05 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:22:43 +0200 From: "jianfeng delaney" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: negnowdf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Big surprise for your little "guy". He has an opportunity to grow up, with this incredible medicine right now: http://www.zoroturo.com/ From Juop_Nyakacska@roofgenius.com Sun Dec 23 16:18:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6YCz-0003UB-6I for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:18:05 -0500 Received: from xdslca079.osnanet.de ([89.166.128.79]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6YCy-0004Xp-LB for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:18:05 -0500 Received: from Daniel ([186.197.178.116]:20422 "EHLO Daniel" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by xdslca079.osnanet.de with ESMTP id S22MHJOBHLAWBKZW (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:15:45 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:15:29 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org From: "Juop Nyakacska" Subject: iopodous Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Great relief for you and your small cock. Apply this medicament, and you'll see how your cock will grow 3x times http://kruffesits.com/ From iaywvl@bnslink.com Sun Dec 23 19:51:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6bX9-0006KL-Vm; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:51:08 -0500 Received: from 146-28-21-190.adsl.terra.cl ([190.21.28.146] helo=computador) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6bX6-0000b5-FT; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:51:07 -0500 Received: from [190.21.28.146] by spam2.bnslink.com; , 23 Dec 2007 20:51:08 -0400 From: "Jerry Charles" To: Subject: Re: Charles Date: , 23 Dec 2007 20:51:08 -0400 Message-ID: <01c845a5$8ac2c600$921c15be@iaywvl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Helping men for 3years now, Give us a shot you wont regret it. http://www.eihthundplus.com videos, enrichment From sdeck@bludyred.com Sun Dec 23 22:46:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6eGU-0001Kv-Uh; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:46:07 -0500 Received: from [116.75.65.107] (helo=home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6eGN-0003oc-Ou; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:46:06 -0500 Received: from [116.75.65.107] by bludyred.com; , 23 Dec 2007 19:45:05 -0800 Date: , 23 Dec 2007 19:45:05 -0800 From: "Barnes" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.01) Personal Reply-To: sdeck@bludyred.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <975787181.70082660828027@bludyred.com> To: syslog-request@lists.ietf.org Subject: Hugs and Kisses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Hey you I read your profile on-line a few minutes ago and you seem intresting email me at Nichole@GloryWayChurchx.info and I will reply with a Picture and Info about me right away I will stay online and wait for your email Talk to you soon From urxnnhymoi@blueskybirds.com Mon Dec 24 00:24:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6fnV-00056X-Oc; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:24:17 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.8.69.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.8.69]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6fnU-0005Dj-Ln; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:24:17 -0500 Received: from [58.9.8.69] by mx.npsis.com; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:21:27 +0700 From: "Wyatt Lange" To: Subject: Re: Software Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:21:27 +0700 Message-ID: <01c84627$817a3d80$4508093a@urxnnhymoi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Gain a full 3+ inches on your Manhood, Safe and fast. Your Wife or Girlfriend will Thank you http://www.goupfurtha.com Nail From adanguardfish9151555@yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 07:47:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6miO-0003ov-9N; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:47:28 -0500 Received: from p7866-adslbkksp7.c.csloxinfo.net ([58.136.94.246]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6miL-0006wQ-Gx; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:47:28 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 170.215.72.187 by smtp.58.136.94.246; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:46:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Earline Nunez" Reply-To: "Earline Nunez" To: uri-review@ietf.org Subject: Winter qual1ty w4tches offer Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:46:29 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Winter is hitting and christmas are coming. Do you need perfect gift? 0rder high qual1ty repl1ca of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.svabbge.com/ From abdulnightingalize4907104@yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 08:00:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6muW-0006Z6-FC; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:00:00 -0500 Received: from e177232160.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.177.232.160]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6muV-0007Ai-IA; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:00:00 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 0.156.246.212 by smtp.85.177.232.160; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:59:57 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Eva Williamson" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Eva Williamson" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Repl1ca watch is a perfect gift! Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:59:57 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Winter is hitting and christmas are coming. Do you need perfect gift? 0rder high qual1ty repl1ca of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.uyhhhen.com/ From Kennedyeog@globalhealthpeople.com Mon Dec 24 08:45:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6ncA-0004R7-4i for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:45:06 -0500 Received: from host105-144-dynamic.8-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.8.144.105]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6nc6-0008D3-OD for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:45:03 -0500 Received: from plug-47500b2013 ([146.150.105.143] helo=plug-47500b2013) by host105-144-dynamic.8-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1psNdY-000PHR-vL for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:43:20 +0100 Message-ID: <90B5DF0E.20AB1AB8@globalhealthpeople.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:42:50 +0100 From: "Plavina Kennedy" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: mucousne Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Ever wished you had a huge penis? Dreamed of hard thrusting sex all night long? We have the solution! http://cruuserpo.com/ From DenysGunko@martin-wilmes.de Mon Dec 24 10:06:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6otD-0003IZ-UX for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:06:47 -0500 Received: from bxx123.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.30.17.123]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6otD-0001qr-9S for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:06:47 -0500 Received: from moloko-4w0qoiwk ([199.167.192.158]:1626 "EHLO moloko-4w0qoiwk" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by bxx123.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl with ESMTP id S22MMKCNYTKSIOEO (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:14:28 +0100 Message-ID: <656D5D24.2247A2AE@martin-wilmes.de> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:14:07 +0100 From: "Denys Gunko" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ikswokuo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Never be the same again after taking VPXL Herbal - add 3 inches to your penis,and a world of difference to your life. http://quattroist.com/ From gvivbff@bpahealth.com Mon Dec 24 12:32:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6r9s-000076-R8; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:32:08 -0500 Received: from 66-189-184-238.dhcp.wnch.wa.charter.com ([66.189.184.238] helo=azmir-c7y9pnptx) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6r9r-0005h7-JZ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:32:08 -0500 Received: from [66.189.184.238] by mail.bpahealth.com; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:32:07 -0800 From: "Tania Henry" To: Subject: Tania - 100% results. Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:32:07 -0800 Message-ID: <01c8460f$da280a10$eeb8bd42@gvivbff> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8460F.DA280A10" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8460F.DA280A10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It`s not wonder that more than 600,000 medic choice the prescription drug Viagra for their patients with erectile dysfunction(ED).Fact is, when taken correctly, Viagra works for most men. Studies show that it works for up to 4 out of 5 men (versus 1 out of 4 on sugar pill).Viagra improves erections for most men no matter how long they have had ED, what caused it, how often they have it, or how old they are. We provide you 100% results after using our products.See our site! ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8460F.DA280A10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It`s not wonder that more than 600,000 medic choice the prescription = drug Viagra for their patients with erectile dysfunction(ED).


Fact is, when taken correctly, Viagra works for most men. Studies show= that it works for up to 4 out of 5 men (versus 1 out of 4 on sugar pill)=


Viagra improves erections for most men no matter how long they hav= e had ED, what caused it, how often they have it, or how old they are. We= provide you 100% results after using our products.


See our site! ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8460F.DA280A10-- From pascale485@BrianPeak.net Mon Dec 24 13:00:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6ray-0004jS-Ls for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:00:08 -0500 Received: from host38-148-static.25-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([87.25.148.38]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6rax-0006Pt-Nk for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:00:08 -0500 Received: from COSIMO ([123.186.134.51]:18547 "EHLO COSIMO" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host38-148-static.25-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22GYNAXCFTXDOTG (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:00:42 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:00:03 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "pascale Darragh" Subject: sample0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Tired of creams, pumps and ointments that don't work on your small dick? Discover the solution that hundreds of thousands have found! http://quattroist.com/ From teel@alphaquad.com Mon Dec 24 13:13:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6rnx-0002fL-ST; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:13:33 -0500 Received: from [200.88.6.177] (helo=177tdev06.codetel.net.do) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6rnw-0006ko-AR; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:13:33 -0500 Received: from [200.88.6.177] by mx72a.emailfiltering.com; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:13:31 -0600 From: "Horace Dalton" To: Subject: Horace - 100% results. Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:13:31 -0600 Message-ID: <01c84626$65c26780$b10658c8@teel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84626.65C26780" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84626.65C26780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It`s not wonder that more than 600,000 medic choice the prescription drug Viagra for their patients with erectile dysfunction(ED).Fact is, when taken correctly, Viagra works for most men. Studies show that it works for up to 4 out of 5 men (versus 1 out of 4 on sugar pill).Viagra improves erections for most men no matter how long they have had ED, what caused it, how often they have it, or how old they are. We provide you 100% results after using our products.See our site! ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84626.65C26780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It`s not wonder that more than 600,000 medic choice the prescription = drug Viagra for their patients with erectile dysfunction(ED).


Fact is, when taken correctly, Viagra works for most men. Studies = show that it works for up to 4 out of 5 men (versus 1 out of 4 on sugar p= ill).


Viagra improves erections for most men no matter how long they have ha= d ED, what caused it, how often they have it, or how old they are. We pro= vide you 100% results after using our products.


See our site! ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84626.65C26780-- From matty.Jakovlevs@attitude69.com Mon Dec 24 17:59:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6wGs-00013U-Ar for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:59:42 -0500 Received: from host224-151-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([82.56.151.224] helo=host9-136-dynamic.52-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6wGr-0004jU-7U for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:59:41 -0500 Received: from teniv-df5d2ed56 by attitude69.com with ASMTP id 6BA8B86F for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:59:51 +0100 Received: from teniv-df5d2ed56 ([121.176.34.85]) by attitude69.com with ESMTP id FA1250252BBD for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:59:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1BF75F7B.32B18F9D@attitude69.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:59:40 +0100 From: "matty Jakovlevs" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: mimosa Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060205020706020608020705" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------060205020706020608020705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Never again be laughed at in the dressing room because of your small schlong! http://wourerst.com/ --------------060205020706020608020705 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Never again be laughed at in the dressing room because of your small
schlong! http://wourerst.com/
--------------060205020706020608020705-- From tylerd@garagebandonline.com Mon Dec 24 23:25:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J71Li-0001Wd-Sj; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:25:02 -0500 Received: from [212.45.1.243] (helo=ns.luxair.ru) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J71Lh-0001qr-EI; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:25:02 -0500 Received: from [212.45.1.243] by smtp.secureserver.net; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:24:06 +0300 Message-ID: <01c846c7$21d36f00$f3012dd4@tylerd> From: "Aldo Massey" To: Subject: School Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:24:06 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Grow your Manhood 3 inches or more Safe and Fast and your wife or girlfriend will Thank you! http://theasdpoee.com From scotsmentsg@newsfromgermany.com Tue Dec 25 00:31:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J72O6-00044n-VZ for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:31:35 -0500 Received: from h24-207-110-15.cst.dccnet.com ([24.207.110.15] helo=home-8gbalnhdik) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J72O5-0002wT-NV for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:31:34 -0500 Received: from [24.207.110.15] by newsfromgermany.com; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:31:33 -0800 Message-ID: <01c84674$5adeca40$0f6ecf18@scotsmentsg> From: "Angelo Oliver" To: Subject: Stronger erections and more enjoyable sex. Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:31:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84674.5ADECA40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84674.5ADECA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We offer a FULL MONEY BACK GUARANTEE if you are not completely satisfied = with the results of VPXL, you have nothing to lose, just a lot to gain! A= rgyrerin speciosa seed 100 mg, Valeriana wallichii 25 mghttp://asdroodl.c= omWe have mulitiple distribution centres around the world, and endever to= get you your packet as quick as possable. All orders will be processed a= nd dispatched within 24hrs. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84674.5ADECA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We offer a FULL MONEY BACK GUARANTEE if = you are not completely satisfied with the results of VPXL, you have nothi= ng to lose, just a lot to gain! Argyrerin speciosa seed 100 mg, Valeriana= wallichii 25 mg
We have mulitiple distribution centres a= round the world, and endever to get you your packet as quick as possable.= All orders will be processed and dispatched within 24hrs.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84674.5ADECA40-- From ftls@vertexrelo.com Tue Dec 25 01:08:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J72xR-0005dA-HS; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:08:05 -0500 Received: from [122.161.111.94] (helo=ABTS-NCR-Dynamic-094.111.161.122.airtelbroadband.in) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J72xQ-0003Rf-AW; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:08:05 -0500 Received: from [122.161.111.94] by mxmail.register.com; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:37:09 +0530 Message-ID: <01c846ea$7b996080$5e6fa17a@ftls> From: "Mel Marks" To: Subject: Bowl Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:37:09 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Grow your Manhood 3 inches or more Safe and Fast and your wife or girlfriend will Thank you! http://foasetss.com From graynessry44@jeddraper.com Tue Dec 25 03:45:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J75Pm-0007GA-DI for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:45:30 -0500 Received: from [212.33.243.147] (helo=pppoe-243-147.ertelecom.ru) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J75Pl-00063q-7Y for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:45:30 -0500 Received: from [212.33.243.147] by smtp.secureserver.net; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:45:28 +0300 Message-ID: <01c846eb$a506bc00$93f321d4@graynessry44> From: "Sherri Leary" To: Subject: The tests that took place over a 6 month period showed that... Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:45:28 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-2"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 All orders will be processed and dispatched within 24hrs. http://uraouesns.com From tege@qfsi.net Tue Dec 25 08:17:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J79f3-0006ZG-DU; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:17:33 -0500 Received: from [84.78.57.41] (helo=dsldevice.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J79f1-0004BU-JD; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:17:32 -0500 Received: from [84.78.57.41] by SMTP1.MKE.SECURENCE.COM; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:17:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84700$e2c20f80$29394e54@tege> From: "Elva Maher" To: Subject: Re: Elva Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:17:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Get your male enhancer at dirt cheap, proven to work, fast and safe. http://twaedsh.com you have. You know From propulsivem8@countryfarmtables.com Tue Dec 25 09:59:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7BFE-00058t-0J for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:59:00 -0500 Received: from [64.213.118.21] (helo=[64.213.118.21]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7BFC-0007l9-OE for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:58:59 -0500 Received: from [64.213.118.21] by mx1.biz.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:58:59 -0400 Message-ID: <01c846e5$26a71b80$1576d540@propulsivem8> From: "Jody Washburn" To: Subject: No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises! Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:58:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 The body grows and develops GRADUALLY, not over night! http://bushsidures.com From adelPao@cartrade.ru Tue Dec 25 15:15:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7GBR-0007c8-Qy for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:15:25 -0500 Received: from adbe23.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.184.4.23] helo=adcy170.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7GBQ-00070O-Mk for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:15:24 -0500 Received: by 10.200.97.213 with SMTP id WYzdhGrrjPSFz; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:15:28 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.25.155 with SMTP id wWlmAnvpGLHLWA.0141203736748; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:15:26 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <85E3E07F.61A8FE79@cartrade.ru> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:15:23 +0100 From: "adel Pao" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: mitoyens Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060706010608070201000407" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071225-0, 2007-12-25), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------060706010608070201000407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grow 3 inches in 30 days! http://xepokdr.com/ --------------060706010608070201000407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grow 3 inches in 30 days! http://xepokdr.com/
--------------060706010608070201000407-- From konrad@pervalidus.net Tue Dec 25 15:56:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Goj-0000vj-4N for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:56:01 -0500 Received: from ppp91-77-15-64.pppoe.mtu-net.ru ([91.77.15.64] helo=91.77.15.64) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Goi-0007yG-JA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:56:01 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c84738$07863f48$2da49ab3@lwehrj> From: "clevey jana" To: Subject: Breitling Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:08:39 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84738.0781D078" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84738.0781D078 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design= =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Necklace =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84738.0781D078 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design=

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Necklace

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84738.0781D078-- From sholom@pinkponk.com Tue Dec 25 15:56:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Gp1-0000wb-RQ for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:56:20 -0500 Received: from f051076072.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.51.76.72] helo=78.51.76.72) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Goz-0007yj-0t for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:56:19 -0500 Received: from [78.51.76.72] by taurus-1.siol.net; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:56:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c84738$04f0fde1$a49e418e@iqoxmvs> From: "car clark" To: Subject: Breitling Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:08:48 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84738.04EB4848" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84738.04EB4848 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design= =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Necklace =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84738.04EB4848 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design=

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Necklace

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84738.04EB4848-- From george.c@porosil.com Tue Dec 25 22:21:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7MpM-00070B-JA; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:21:04 -0500 Received: from ppp85-140-183-77.pppoe.mtu-net.ru ([85.140.183.77] helo=miro) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7MpL-0007wW-19; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:21:04 -0500 Received: from [85.140.183.77] by mail.porosil.com; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:20:07 +0300 Message-ID: <01c84787$5c19a240$4db78c55@george.c> From: "Dougherty" To: Subject: Hey There Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:20:07 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.2300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.2300 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Hey you I read your profile on-line a few minutes ago and you seem intresting email me at Nikki@GloryWayChurchx.info and I will reply with a Picture and Info about me right away I will stay online and wait for your email Talk to you soon From Brandon872@magicwands.net Wed Dec 26 00:24:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Okr-0000fA-Dl for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:24:33 -0500 Received: from 29.mtpl4.xdsl.nauticom.net ([209.195.172.30]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Okq-0001mL-DS for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:24:33 -0500 Received: by 10.222.225.158 with SMTP id UQuNTwtEPKloM; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:24:29 -0500 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.222.18 with SMTP id qwpknTpxzuPKcB.9676486706060; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:24:27 -0500 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:24:24 -0500 From: "Brandon harapen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: nsyksyst Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Is your missile not finding the target? Boost it up now! http://www.wuftidt.com/
From housewifej5@tekindagitim.com Wed Dec 26 02:17:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7QW0-0003r2-C4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:17:20 -0500 Received: from [78.172.17.124] (helo=[78.172.17.124]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7QVy-0003w5-W9 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:17:20 -0500 Received: from [78.172.17.124] by mail.tekindagitim.com; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:17:18 +0200 Message-ID: <01c847a0$1c962300$7c11ac4e@housewifej5> From: "Lakisha Donnelly" To: Subject: Our money back guarantee is great. Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:17:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 also very discreet and private with no indication of penis enlargement on the bottle, package or billing receipt. http://meropers.com From lecherq1@beveragelawyer.com Wed Dec 26 10:07:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Xqf-0001ql-Ly for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:07:09 -0500 Received: from [41.251.12.227] (helo=[41.251.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Xqe-0005mz-8H for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:07:09 -0500 Message-ID: <01c847d0$fb99f600$e30cfb29@lecherq1> From: "Sung Jernigan" To: Subject: These customer letters just prove how GOOD our VPXL pills are! Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:07:08 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Tribulus terrestris 50 mg; Albizzia lebbeck 50 mg http://putinesush.com From Fil_Hutson@skemidwestern.com Wed Dec 26 13:01:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7aZ3-0000fP-JD for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:01:09 -0500 Received: from i01v-213-44-197-13.d4.club-internet.fr ([213.44.197.13]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7aZ3-0001Gd-1u for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:01:09 -0500 Received: from daniel ([180.165.183.140]:11931 "EHLO daniel" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by i01v-213-44-197-13.d4.club-internet.fr with ESMTP id S22QGTFLQCFGSNHK (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:01:29 +0100 Message-ID: <5703F2F6.62D95CF7@skemidwestern.com> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:01:10 +0100 From: "Fil Hutson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: krowreta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Your girl will not believe how amazing you are in bed, after taking VPXL! http://deutosri.com/ From agnes@ret.com Wed Dec 26 13:07:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7aej-0007JS-AE for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:07:01 -0500 Received: from r190-64-77-83.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy ([190.64.77.83] helo=190.64.90.183) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7aeh-0001OU-EH for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:07:01 -0500 Received: from [190.64.90.183] by mailbackup1.kpn.net; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:06:56 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c847e1$062c2a1b$246bea93@djcmt> From: "jacky innocenzio" To: Subject: Cartier Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:19:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C847E1.062A05A2" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C847E1.062A05A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design= =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Earings =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C847E1.062A05A2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design=

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Earings

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C847E1.062A05A2-- From nyiill@bonappetitsoftware.com Wed Dec 26 14:39:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7c5s-0005ay-Vr; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:39:09 -0500 Received: from [200.35.168.77] (helo=[200.35.168.77]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7c5r-0003sB-MY; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:39:08 -0500 Received: from [200.35.168.77] by mail.sjweb.net; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:36:14 -0600 From: "Bradly Marks" To: Subject: Re: Insect Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:36:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Aca6QKT9M76Z6M0CLEHUSQRR9X93H7== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Message-ID: <01c847c4$48c39b00$4da823c8@nyiill> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Perhaps your girl really likes it the deeper you can go, help her and you out. http://www.Convsiumiet.com Spot Light From vondavj18@opvantek.com Wed Dec 26 19:38:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7gl9-0004Ao-4j for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:38:03 -0500 Received: from [60.190.33.198] (helo=[60.190.33.198]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7gl5-0002aU-Vo for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:38:02 -0500 Received: from [60.190.33.198] by opvantek.com.inbound15.mxlogic.net; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:38:01 +0000 Message-ID: <01c84820$bbfafa80$c621be3c@vondavj18> From: "Eunice Kearney" To: Subject: My new girlfriend is really impressed with my size and stamina. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:38:01 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84820.BBFAFA80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84820.BBFAFA80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unlike pumps, weights and surgery, VPXL delivers results that are safe an= d permanent! When you reach the growth size that you want to achieve, you= no longer need to take VPXL. Yes! It is safer then placing an order over= the phone or even buying anything at retail stores. We don't save your c= redit card information and can't even view it. All data is transmitted th= rough a secure server by our credit card processor.http://sugarfiszh.comV= itamin E 20 IU, soya protein concentrate 250 mg ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84820.BBFAFA80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Unlike pumps, weights and surgery, VPXL = delivers results that are safe and permanent! When you reach the growth s= ize that you want to achieve, you no longer need to take VPXL. Yes! It is= safer then placing an order over the phone or even buying anything at re= tail stores. We don't save your credit card information and can't even vi= ew it. All data is transmitted through a secure server by our credit card= processor.
Vitamin E 20 IU, soya protein concentrat= e 250 mg
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84820.BBFAFA80-- From bridgely@talk21.com Wed Dec 26 22:57:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7js1-0001iR-Au for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:57:21 -0500 Received: from pool-72-67-15-12.lsanca.fios.verizon.net ([72.67.15.12] helo=72.67.15.12) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7js0-0006Qk-Qz for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:57:21 -0500 Received: from [72.67.15.12] by ns2.bt.net; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:57:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c8483c$0610db70$27a1afbb@smhvoo> From: "acacia@nokia.com|mx2.nokia.com|192.100.122.233|mx2.nokia.com|192.100.122.233|mx2.nokia.com|192.100.122.232|mx1.nokia.com|192.100.122.228|mx1.nokia.com|192.100.122.229|mx1.nokia.com|192.100.122.229|ns2.nokia.com|131.228.20.20|ns3.nokia.com|147.243.192.4|ns4.nokia.com|147.243.192.5|ns5.nokia.com|147.243.128.31|ns6.nokia.com|147.243.128.32|ns.nokia.com|131.228.20.19" To: Subject: Job in USA Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:09:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8483C.060F24A3" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8483C.060F24A3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Job in USA. =20 =20 =20 =20 http://freelance-job-usa.com/job.php =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8483C.060F24A3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






Job in=20 USA.

http://freelance-job-usa.com/job.php



------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8483C.060F24A3-- From Husein676@abec.biz Thu Dec 27 03:52:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7oTS-0003zU-M8 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:52:18 -0500 Received: from [89.186.118.178] (helo=[89.186.122.142]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7oTR-0003lR-Hy for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:52:18 -0500 Received: from aaa-awfw69q46ai ([149.177.58.108] helo=aaa-awfw69q46ai) by [89.186.122.142] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1EjXUW-000RXT-KZ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:52:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:52:30 +0100 From: "Husein Colville" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: sseliseo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Big dicks are NOT in the genes.. you can have one too! Click here http://longtueslcw.com/ From Megginsonbgzg@abec.biz Thu Dec 27 03:52:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7oTj-00043F-Ua for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:52:35 -0500 Received: from [89.186.118.178] (helo=[89.186.122.142]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7oTj-0003lq-81 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:52:35 -0500 Received: from aaa-awfw69q46ai ([101.152.138.45] helo=aaa-awfw69q46ai) by [89.186.122.142] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1HHxWM-000NGQ-VZ for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:53:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:52:48 +0100 From: "trong Megginson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: sselesro Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Impress your girl with your newly acquired GIRTH! http://korowie.com/
From bloodhoundste5@andrewrose.org Thu Dec 27 04:04:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7ofQ-0002f6-Sm for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:04:40 -0500 Received: from [85.95.64.30] (helo=u30.amotera.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7ofP-0004F1-OZ for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:04:40 -0500 Received: from [85.95.64.30] by INBOUND.ANDREWROSE.ORG.NETSOLMAIL.NET; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:04:38 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84878$4589e700$1e405f55@bloodhoundste5> From: "Alberta Lott" To: Subject: OdessaShlongGreatest Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:04:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 DickBroadRichie http://kiteoputer.com From dutamglbuuah@bobcatbicycles.com Thu Dec 27 05:41:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qAu-0003EA-KZ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:41:16 -0500 Received: from 221x251x3x146.ap221.ftth.ucom.ne.jp ([221.251.3.146]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qAs-0006rB-OC; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:41:15 -0500 Received: from [221.251.3.146] by mbay6.mx.proofpoint.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:41:19 +0900 From: "Darcy Keller" To: Subject: Re: Keller Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:41:19 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: Aca6QI72VROSYCD81025UWMD9GJYMF== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Message-ID: <01c848c0$73931980$9203fbdd@dutamglbuuah> X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Perhaps your girl really likes it the longer you can perform, help her and yourself out. http://www.Verysleenst.com complaint about when he casually mentions academy report says. irritating and consequently neurobiology, cognitive has a From Lucinda_Buur@huaixin.com Thu Dec 27 06:06:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qZP-00052A-OM for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:06:35 -0500 Received: from [88.248.24.44] (helo=dsl88-248-6188.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qZO-0007V5-Ra for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:06:35 -0500 Received: from mustafa ([122.123.102.19]:4185 "EHLO mustafa" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by dsl88-248-6188.ttnet.net.tr with ESMTP id S22JFGQAMYJMWOGN (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:06:52 +0200 Message-ID: <2578FE8D.2BE39120@huaixin.com> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:06:30 +0200 From: "Lucinda Buur" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ilremmok Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.6 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Let the magic begin with a larger penis! http://loekkiie.com/ From paal-Dargahi@huaixin.com Thu Dec 27 06:07:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qa9-0005bD-Ex for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:07:21 -0500 Received: from [88.248.24.44] (helo=dsl88-248-6188.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qa8-0007Vu-RR for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:07:21 -0500 Received: from mustafa ([182.147.78.141]:19961 "EHLO mustafa" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by dsl88-248-6188.ttnet.net.tr with ESMTP id S22XAQNPGKVPEKDJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:07:36 +0200 Message-ID: <552868ED.18ED0164@huaixin.com> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:07:17 +0200 From: "paal Dargahi" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: ilgnak Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Love means never having to say you're small! http://huteeine.com/
From Joalene129@huaixin.com Thu Dec 27 06:08:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qbC-0007UM-3w for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:08:26 -0500 Received: from [88.248.24.44] (helo=dsl88-248-6188.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qbB-0007Y0-FU for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:08:26 -0500 Received: by 10.50.75.174 with SMTP id MpLpNXawlDFOm; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:08:26 +0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.188.224 with SMTP id NzgDUorkaWAUVt.3858479294797; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:08:24 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <3809BF5E.5BAF0A90@huaixin.com> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:08:21 +0200 From: "Joalene Potvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ileppmis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030703010307080808000603" X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------030703010307080808000603 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Check out the product created for the good of all men! http://www.ialopew.com/ --------------030703010307080808000603 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Check out the product created for the good of all men! http://www.ialopew.com/
--------------030703010307080808000603-- From e.huber@coyotetracks.net Thu Dec 27 06:12:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qfJ-0003xN-4u; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:12:41 -0500 Received: from [122.167.226.16] (helo=ABTS-KK-Dynamic-016.226.167.122.airtelbroadband.in) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qfH-0007fT-WE; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:12:40 -0500 Received: from [122.167.226.16] by mx1.balanced.frisky.mail.dreamhost.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:41:43 +0530 From: "Watts" To: Subject: Very intrested Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:41:43 +0530 Message-ID: <01c848a7$5cd72100$10e2a77a@e.huber> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Hey you I read your profile on-line a few minutes ago and you seem intresting email me at Dani@GloryWayChurchx.info and I will reply with a Picture and Info about me right away I will stay online and wait for your email Talk to you soon From sandiest41@qsbh.com Thu Dec 27 07:57:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7sIb-0006aL-4e for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:57:21 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.19.78.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.19.78] helo=win06v6) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7sIX-0001Yb-DW for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:57:18 -0500 Message-ID: <01c848c2$ae964c80$4e13093a@sandiest41> From: "Janine Albright" To: Subject: I am no longer embarrassed in the locker room and I feel that I am a solid size now. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:57:17 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Unlike pumps, weights and surgery, VPXL delivers results that are safe and permanent! http://suhshitee.com From wigwagm19@shb-law.com Thu Dec 27 10:15:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7uSk-0002Jk-JG for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:15:58 -0500 Received: from 148.27.136.118.fast.net.id ([118.136.27.148] helo=user-0b02034f0d.firstmedia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7uSj-0005AE-1e for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:15:58 -0500 Received: from [118.136.27.148] by mail1.shb-law.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:15:56 +0700 Message-ID: <01c848d6$0d18f600$941b8876@wigwagm19> From: "Burt Roland" To: Subject: I have been on the product 2 months now and I have already gained 1 inch. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:15:56 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 I gained just over 2 inches with VPXL! http://fueepoert.com From gadhhrcte@branca.com.au Thu Dec 27 13:23:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7xOD-0005CC-JF; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:23:29 -0500 Received: from [78.174.100.218] (helo=[78.174.100.218]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7xOC-000280-9X; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:23:29 -0500 Received: from [78.174.100.218] by mx2.bne.server-mail.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:23:28 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:23:28 +0200 From: "Isabel Bartlett" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.5) Professional Reply-To: gadhhrcte@branca.com.au X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <536877690.58810142705185@branca.com.au> To: uri-review-request@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Re: Isabel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071226-0, 26.12.2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 You know your girl really loves it the deeper you can go, help her and you out. http://www.Lpsuumees.com is not obliged to and why everything for some of shall be pleased to design problems, and better report says. From guadalupeq@jo-steele.com Thu Dec 27 13:30:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7xUY-0008L5-GH for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:30:02 -0500 Received: from tdev137-218.codetel.net.do ([200.88.137.218]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7xUX-0002Ka-7k; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:30:02 -0500 Received: from [200.88.137.218] by fltr-in2.mail.dreamhost.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:30:00 -0400 From: "Ursula Purcell" To: Subject: Larger and Larger Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:30:00 -0400 Message-ID: <01c84894$f605e400$da8958c8@guadalupeq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 FDA Approved http://www.askposti.com From vocalistsfg13@twiddle.net Thu Dec 27 13:39:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7xdk-0005VU-GB for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:39:32 -0500 Received: from [190.24.161.143] (helo=corporat190-024161143.sta.etb.net.co) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7xcv-0002ZR-OQ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:39:30 -0500 Received: from [190.24.161.143] by are.twiddle.net; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:39:05 -0500 From: "Merrill Reeves" To: Subject: Gain 3+ Inches In Length Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:39:05 -0500 Message-ID: <01c8488d$d919e280$8fa118be@vocalistsfg13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 Increase Your PenisWidth(Girth) By upto20% http://www.askposti.com From akstcagiamnsdgs@agia.ad Thu Dec 27 18:20:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J821B-0002s0-5m for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:20:01 -0500 Received: from [88.255.108.86] (helo=garanti-vcs86vr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8219-0001Hc-Lt for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:20:00 -0500 Received: from [88.255.108.86] by correu3.myp.ad; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:26:52 -0800 Message-ID: <01c8489c$e8190130$566cff58@akstcagiamnsdgs> From: "Adele Sanchez" To: Subject: joy that is a cherished Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:26:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Buy your meds online http://bestcanadianbranch com Please put the dot in the space before the COM to use the link From rmdmfimbp@boedecker.com Thu Dec 27 23:51:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J87C4-0005V6-QS; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:51:36 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.54.72.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.54.72] helo=com1) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J87C3-0000rd-FI; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:51:36 -0500 Received: from [58.9.54.72] by envimail.enventis.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:51:41 +0700 From: "Mavis Reeder" To: Subject: Re: Reeder Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:51:41 +0700 Message-ID: <01c84948$02974480$4836093a@rmdmfimbp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Help yourself and your women, display them a new you. http://www.eitpskdd.com no powers at my the "Trading Spaces" show. the academy's report. may be somewhat With Design Patterns, for your kids if you From xqub@bordeaux-longskate-club.com Fri Dec 28 01:08:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J88OH-00035L-Sg; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:08:17 -0500 Received: from c-76-119-119-92.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([76.119.119.92]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J88OG-00030s-Mj; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:08:17 -0500 Received: from [76.119.119.92] by mx.alienor.net; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:08:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:08:16 -0500 From: "Gerardo Mcfarland" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.5.30) Professional Reply-To: xqub@bordeaux-longskate-club.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <317070751.09041718769962@bordeaux-longskate-club.com> To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Re: "I truly believe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 All Med*s onsale 100% safe and fast shipping http://atmay.com From sigmals731@hopeforusall.com Fri Dec 28 01:20:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J88aH-0004sS-8X for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:20:41 -0500 Received: from [125.112.173.136] (helo=[125.112.173.136]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J88aF-0003ZR-Vt for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:20:40 -0500 Received: from [125.112.173.136] by smtp.secureserver.net; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:20:36 +0800 From: "Jarvis Richards" To: Subject: Help StopPrematureEjaaculation Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:20:36 +0800 Message-ID: <01c8495c$d0441200$88ad707d@sigmals731> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients http://www.askposti.com From Cristocea-Moilanen@soulengine.com Fri Dec 28 02:30:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J89fR-0003nq-4I for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:30:05 -0500 Received: from adsl-ull-123-67.48-151.net24.it ([151.48.67.123]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J89fQ-0004uK-Ex for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:30:04 -0500 Received: from Dino ([103.189.123.153]:13579 "EHLO Dino" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by adsl-ull-123-67.48-151.net24.it with ESMTP id S22MMJOGYWTQHXIN (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:30:08 +0100 Message-ID: <43CC08C5.459DF686@soulengine.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:29:58 +0100 From: "Cristocea Moilanen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: afzeem Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Always wanted to SATISFY your girls? - your huge ramrod will drill
them dry. http://werkstop.com/
From pullar@soulengine.com Fri Dec 28 02:32:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J89hX-0006lA-N7 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:32:15 -0500 Received: from adsl-ull-123-67.48-151.net24.it ([151.48.67.123]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J89hX-0004xR-1s for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:32:15 -0500 Received: from Dino ([191.149.146.55]:4717 "EHLO Dino" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by adsl-ull-123-67.48-151.net24.it with ESMTP id S22RCZUAHPZIAFKE (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:32:26 +0100 Message-ID: <3EA73801.5F4BA621@soulengine.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:32:10 +0100 From: "ORHAN pullar" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ahskeib Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Always wanted to SATISFY your girls? - your huge ramrod will drill them dry. http://www.ataszchx.com/ From Mewett@bansoft.com Fri Dec 28 03:56:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8B1Q-0007DO-7E for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:52 -0500 Received: from [194.250.70.156] (helo=[194.250.70.156]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8B1P-0006Uj-K8 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:52 -0500 Received: from dumagasin ([121.109.166.146] helo=dumagasin) by [194.250.70.156] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1sUKgX-000JRT-AC for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: <33693B6A.590D61C4@bansoft.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:54:58 +0100 From: "horvath Mewett" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: nedretal Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Ever wondered what makes dicks grow? http://www.lajuggar.com/
From louisiananscm@maximumebiz.com Fri Dec 28 04:06:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8BAJ-0005qj-Lj for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:06:03 -0500 Received: from [92.112.215.24] (helo=XXXX) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8BAG-0006pq-7E; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:06:03 -0500 Received: from [92.112.215.24] by mx01.1and1.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:05:59 +0200 From: "Kathleen Thornton" To: Subject: Larger and Larger Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:05:59 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84941$a03b4580$18d7705c@louisiananscm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4963.1700 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients http://www.askposti.com From akstcaafomnsdgs@aafo.org Fri Dec 28 04:45:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8BmK-0002RQ-B5 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:45:20 -0500 Received: from [222.242.82.139] (helo=jujumao) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8BmJ-0000S6-5V for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:45:20 -0500 Received: from [222.242.82.139] by gw-mail4.royaltyservers.net; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:52:14 +0800 From: "Lucinda Dyer" To: Subject: better off Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:52:14 +0800 Message-ID: <01c8497a$61396bd0$8b52f2de@akstcaafomnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1158 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Buy your meds online http://geocities.com/ForestBaird12 From joanne@conwaymechanical.com Fri Dec 28 05:18:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8CIT-0005fO-9T; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:18:33 -0500 Received: from [41.207.162.2] (helo=[41.207.162.2]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8CIA-0002vc-0R; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:18:33 -0500 Received: from [41.207.162.2] by mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:17:15 +0000 Message-ID: <01c8493a$d1eb2ac0$02a2cf29@joanne> From: "Gabrielle Hyatt" To: Subject: You will be suprised Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:17:15 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Great Gift ideas online Top Quality for Men, Women and Kids http://syoldyear.com When Arctic winds crack down from Canada XII. The Mystery of the Missing Ships: The Franklin Search Lucky the bell—still full and deep of throat, From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 08:04:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8EtQ-0005JJ-1N for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:04:52 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8EtN-0003oG-Q6 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:04:52 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8EsP-000Dxj-Bq for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:03:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8EsM-000Dx6-Hi for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:03:48 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBSD3YIV070915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:03:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <1C7D9DD9-F803-4C2A-9EBC-34C05CC858A9@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:03:42 +0100 References: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 On 21 dec 2007, at 4:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I'm sympathetic to the idea. Bringing in the shim action > only when it's actually needed sounds good in principle. > The devil is in the details, of course, but we can > investigate that off-list if people would like us > to follow this up. One thing before we jump into specifics: I don't think reusing parts from shim6 makes a lot of sense for authentication. There are already several datagram based authentication mechanisms, and they can get quite complex. If a host needs to authenticate towards a NAT-PT translator, it would be much simpler to set up a TLS-protected TCP session and then do simple user/ password authentication. Then, the translator can trust all packets coming from the source address in question, or it can provide the host with a session key that can then be used in further shim signaling. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 08:04:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8EtW-0005JY-9r for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:04:58 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8EtV-0003oO-PT for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:04:58 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8EnK-000DaR-0g for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:58:34 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8EnG-000DZz-Vo for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:58:32 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBSCwJiK070652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:58:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:58:27 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Hi, (I posted largely the same message to the internet area list yesterday because we had extensive discussions there about DSL Forum stuff.) One of the things that we haven't quite figured out about IPv6 is how broadband deployment would work. I think it would be good if we can agree that customer routers can request an IPv6 prefix using DHCPv6 prefix delegation. Since there is really no other way to do this, I don't expect that to be too controversial. The problem is how ISPs get to enforce restrictions on how packets flow from devices connected to the DSL or cable modem (or link, a user could buy their own modem which isn't controlled by the ISP). If there is a dedicated physical or virtual interface per customer, this is all simple enough. But I understand this isn't necessarily the case, and moving in that direction could be costly. So here's another approach. Please let me know what you think. The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: it basically injects some bits that are particular to the customer/ line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. For instance, if an IPv6 router sits on top of two layers of layer 2 aggregation devices, the IPv6 router sends out router advertisements with prefix 2001:db8:31::/64. The lowest layer of aggregation devices then insert a 16-bit customer or line ID in bits 48 - 63 so that customer 9 sees 2001:db8:31:9::/64 and customer 10 2001:db8:31:a::/64 and so on. (The router advertisements can also be generated by the layer 2 device itself, but there probably needs to be some centrally configured info in there, too.) Customers without an IPv6 router do normal IPv6 stateless autoconfig so the lower 64 bits of the addresses are random, but the ISP only sees packets with the customer ID number somewhere in the higher bits so they know which packets come from which customer. The layer 2 infrastructure can safely impose the restriction that all customer traffic goes to the IPv6 router and not to other customers, because customers don't know their neighbor's prefix is on-link so they'll send those packets to the router anyway. And the router doesn't need an address in all those prefixes, the users only need to know its link local address. (Of course add ingress filtering as required.) The router is simply told that all of 2001:db8:31::/48 is on-link so it will do ND for all customer machines, but it doesn't send redirects. (I would probably implement a per-customer ND cache LRU algorithm to prevent one user from DoSing a whole town by generating large amounts of addresses that the router must do neighbor discovery for. There is no reason why a user wouldn't be able to connect a large number of machines using a switch but this may not be altogether desirable from the ISP's perspective.) From jsny@bowiepumps.com Fri Dec 28 08:14:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8F2N-0001Vs-Ee; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:14:07 -0500 Received: from ppp0-023.ciscom.ru ([79.120.55.173]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8F2M-00073k-5h; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:14:06 -0500 Received: from [79.120.55.173] by mail.riceeng.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:14:05 +0300 From: "Fred Foreman" To: Subject: Help StopPrematureEjaaculation Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:14:05 +0300 Message-ID: <01c8496c$aabf0480$ad37784f@jsny> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4963.1700 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 FDA Approved http://rotuebu.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 09:46:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8GTM-0008PI-9b for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:46:04 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8GTL-0005mm-TW for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:46:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8GQl-000LCL-Gj for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:43:23 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_BAD_ID,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [163.117.176.131] (helo=smtp01.uc3m.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8GQi-000LBo-Kl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:43:22 +0000 Received: from [200.40.5.165] (unknown [200.40.5.165])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC6F2B96FB;Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:43:14 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <1C7D9DD9-F803-4C2A-9EBC-34C05CC858A9@muada.com> References: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> <1C7D9DD9-F803-4C2A-9EBC-34C05CC858A9@muada.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Brian E Carpenter , IPv6 Operations Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:43:30 +0100 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-13.8534 TC:1F TRN:44 TV:5.0.1023(15634.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 Hi Iljitsch, El 28/12/2007, a las 14:03, Iljitsch van Beijnum escribi=F3: > On 21 dec 2007, at 4:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> I'm sympathetic to the idea. Bringing in the shim action >> only when it's actually needed sounds good in principle. >> The devil is in the details, of course, but we can >> investigate that off-list if people would like us >> to follow this up. > > One thing before we jump into specifics: > > I don't think reusing parts from shim6 makes a lot of sense for =20 > authentication. There are already several datagram based =20 > authentication mechanisms, and they can get quite complex. If a =20 > host needs to authenticate towards a NAT-PT translator, it would be =20= > much simpler to set up a TLS-protected TCP session and then do =20 > simple user/password authentication. Then, the translator can trust =20= > all packets coming from the source address in question, or it can =20 > provide the host with a session key that can then be used in =20 > further shim signaling. > i think this depends on the application scenario that the mechanism =20 is designed to work on. Having TLS + user/password may be ok for some =20= scenarios, but you need to provision the tls certs and the user and =20 password, which may be ok for some application cases and not so ok =20 for others. So i would suggest we first figure out which is the =20 application scenario where the mechanisms is supposed to work on, =20 then we figure out the threats and then try to work on security tools =20= for that In some cases, it is an important advantage and it is enough to have =20 security techniques that do not require pre shared secrets and do not =20= require infrastrucutre to their deployment. If this is possible, i =20 would assume that this is preferred, since it would provide the =20 required security without imposing the cost of the deployment of the =20 infrastrucutre and the key provisioning (FWIW, imho it would be possible to find such security approaches for =20= SHANTI, but again, we are far from understanding the details of this) Regards, marcelo From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 09:51:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8GYU-0006lt-T4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:51:22 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8GYU-0005tU-8D for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:51:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8GXu-000Lju-Ej for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:50:46 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [208.17.35.59] (helo=paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8GXr-000LjT-IQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:50:44 +0000 Received: from ([10.52.116.31]) by paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.40621291; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:50:32 -0500 Received: from NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com ([172.24.2.44]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP02.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:50:32 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:50:32 -0500 Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800159BBAA@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPv6 broadband provisioning Thread-Index: AchJVk8LDyS3bVkrRo+Fzp36TQarmQABBx01 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> From: "Brzozowski, John" To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2007 14:50:32.0500 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF103740:01C84960] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Hello Iljitsch, please see my comments inline below. Regards, John ---------------------------------------------------=20 John Jason Brzozowski (CISSP, RHCT) Comcast Corporation e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com m) 609-377-6594 p) 856-324-2671 --------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org on behalf of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Fri 12/28/2007 7:58 AM To: IPv6 Operations Subject: IPv6 broadband provisioning =20 Hi, (I posted largely the same message to the internet area list yesterday =20 because we had extensive discussions there about DSL Forum stuff.) One of the things that we haven't quite figured out about IPv6 is how =20 broadband deployment would work. I think it would be good if we can =20 agree that customer routers can request an IPv6 prefix using DHCPv6 =20 prefix delegation. Since there is really no other way to do this, I =20 don't expect that to be too controversial. [jjmb] This seems reasonable. The problem is how ISPs get to enforce restrictions on how packets =20 flow from devices connected to the DSL or cable modem (or link, a user =20 could buy their own modem which isn't controlled by the ISP). If there =20 is a dedicated physical or virtual interface per customer, this is all =20 simple enough. But I understand this isn't necessarily the case, and =20 moving in that direction could be costly. So here's another approach. =20 Please let me know what you think. The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device =20 very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router =20 advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: =20 it basically injects some bits that are particular to the customer/=20 line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. [jjmb] If I understand this correctly there will be a unique RA sent for = each subscriber? Assuming yes, I am not sure this is universally = applicable to all access networks. Additionally, I think we would = require some dynamic mechanism, perhaps via DHCPv6, to dynamically = provide the data to the route to facilitate configuration otherwise this = would be very complex from a management and operational point of view. For instance, if an IPv6 router sits on top of two layers of layer 2 =20 aggregation devices, the IPv6 router sends out router advertisements =20 with prefix 2001:db8:31::/64. The lowest layer of aggregation devices =20 then insert a 16-bit customer or line ID in bits 48 - 63 so that =20 customer 9 sees 2001:db8:31:9::/64 and customer 10 2001:db8:31:a::/64 =20 and so on. (The router advertisements can also be generated by the =20 layer 2 device itself, but there probably needs to be some centrally =20 configured info in there, too.) [jjmb] Apologies if there is an obvious answer to this question, but how = do the aggregation devices know what to do with the RAs? Is it assumed = that they are simply receiving the same and have been pre-configured to = manipulate the bits required for the respective subscribers? Also this = does not address the scenario where the aggregation devices is also a = router right? Customers without an IPv6 router do normal IPv6 stateless autoconfig =20 so the lower 64 bits of the addresses are random, but the ISP only =20 sees packets with the customer ID number somewhere in the higher bits =20 so they know which packets come from which customer. The layer 2 =20 infrastructure can safely impose the restriction that all customer =20 traffic goes to the IPv6 router and not to other customers, because =20 customers don't know their neighbor's prefix is on-link so they'll =20 send those packets to the router anyway. And the router doesn't need =20 an address in all those prefixes, the users only need to know its link =20 local address. (Of course add ingress filtering as required.) The =20 router is simply told that all of 2001:db8:31::/48 is on-link so it =20 will do ND for all customer machines, but it doesn't send redirects. [jjmb] Stateless auto-configuration is one alternative? DHCPv6 could be = used as well right? (I would probably implement a per-customer ND cache LRU algorithm to =20 prevent one user from DoSing a whole town by generating large amounts =20 of addresses that the router must do neighbor discovery for. There is =20 no reason why a user wouldn't be able to connect a large number of =20 machines using a switch but this may not be altogether desirable from =20 the ISP's perspective.) From towedwz338@highland96.com Fri Dec 28 10:20:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8H0D-0005rw-7k for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:20:01 -0500 Received: from [218.56.71.56] (helo=fgsgfsgs-99j6g7) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8H0C-0002Ak-1W; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:20:00 -0500 Received: from [218.56.71.56] by smtp.secureserver.net; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:59 +0800 From: "Courtney Vera" To: Subject: Gain 3+ Inches In Length Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:19:59 +0800 Message-ID: <01c849a8$2aa6ffa0$384738da@towedwz338> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 Larger and Larger http://www.askposti.com From tekniquedd@addr.com Fri Dec 28 11:35:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IBI-0007si-8P for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:35:32 -0500 Received: from [88.239.37.183] (helo=[88.239.37.183]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IBF-0004IJ-J3 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:35:32 -0500 Received: from [88.239.37.183] by mail41.addr.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:41:04 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84981$3347a000$b725ef58@tekniquedd> From: "Jeanette Kramer" To: Subject: Aircraft Carrier Water Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:41:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Help yourself and your girl, display them a huge you. http://www.ninewerw.com applications. You else. Something more From fmxnf@bluie.com Fri Dec 28 11:35:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IBS-0007zZ-Mp for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:35:42 -0500 Received: from [88.239.37.183] (helo=[88.239.37.183]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IBR-0004If-HN for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:35:42 -0500 Received: from [88.239.37.183] by mail.bluie.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:41:15 +0200 From: "Essie Cramer" To: Subject: Grapes Sandpaper Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:41:15 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84981$39d61780$b725ef58@fmxnf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Help yourself and your women, show them a larger you. http://www.sxkwers.com (and too short) to spend Design Patterns, you'll avoid From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 11:44:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IJq-0002WT-4A for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:44:22 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IJp-0008Mg-RX for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:44:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IFO-000474-Ol for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:39:46 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [64.18.2.163] (helo=exprod7og105.obsmtp.com) by psg.com with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IFF-00045U-4L for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:39:45 +0000 Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:39:32 PST Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:37:46 -0800 Received: from [172.23.1.44] ([172.23.1.44] RDNS failed) by proton.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:37:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4775265C.9030402@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:37:48 -0500 From: Ron Bonica User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2007 16:37:54.0832 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEFE1100:01C8496F] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Folks, The following are a few questions on draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-02: 1) Do the authors want to publish this document as INFORMATIONAL or PS. The tracker says INFORMATIONAL but the document says PS. I recommend INFORMATIONAL. 2) Does Section 2.1.7 belong in the document? The rest of Section 2.1 talks about specific routing and forwarding problems. Section 2.1.7 talks about semantic(?) issues. Ron From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 11:56:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IVO-0002Xl-Ce for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:56:18 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IVN-00008h-2v for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:56:18 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IUA-0005Mg-Sz for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:55:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.117.32.22] (helo=srv013.carpathiahost.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IU8-0005Lv-Bh for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:55:01 +0000 Received: from [66.117.52.141] (unknown [66.117.52.141]) by srv013.carpathiahost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA439361C; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:54:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47752A51.1020900@kl.net> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:54:41 -0500 From: Kevin Loch User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071211) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device very > low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router advertisements > from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: it basically > injects some bits that are particular to the customer/line, so that > every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. This seems a whole lot more convoluted and hackish than just giving operators the option of running dhcpv6 and vrrpv6 with RA turned off. However, There is a way you could do both. Have the CPE devices act as routers instead of l2 bridges. CPE devices request everything including gateway via dhcpv6. They also get a customer subnet (/48 /56 whatever) via dhcpv6 option or via their tftp'd config file. CPE then issues RA's on customer subnet(s) for convenience in the home userspace. This is an example of different environments where dhcpv6/vrrpv6 with RA turned off makes sense, and where fully featured RA is best. I've already mentioned that hosting environments absolutely cannot run any kind of RA due to the strict controls and sometimes complex setups where broadcast style configuration won't work. - Kevin From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 11:56:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IVT-0002a4-IJ for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:56:23 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IVS-00008p-5X for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:56:23 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IUk-0005P0-0W for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:55:38 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IUI-0005NF-C3 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:55:24 +0000 Received: (qmail 47146 invoked by uid 1007); 28 Dec 2007 16:55:04 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=ma4Ut25mU275r0XKUWCw9P4jUICfCpM4Z0eASHvxDolCuknxbhxJsfNf3Y6i9q+J ; Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:55:04 +0100 From: Gert Doering To: Iljitsch van Beijnum Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Message-ID: <20071228165504.GT69215@Space.Net> References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NCC-RegID: de.space Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Hi, On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 01:58:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device > very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router > advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: > it basically injects some bits that are particular to the customer/ > line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. I see your proposal as a solution to the problem space "multiple customers share a single layer 3 segment". In our network, this is basically a non-problem - every customer has their own routed layer 3 segment, gets their own /48 (or /56), and the ingress router will do proper IPv6 uRPF (eventually). We are not a cable modem operator (where a large and shared broadcast domain is unavoidable), but as far as I understand, for those networks the cable modem is always provided and provisioned by the operator? If yes, they shouldn't have a problem here either. Another problem area might be large-scale DSL where customers are not terminated by PPPoE/L2TP, but sort of "all of them bridged together" - here your approach might make sense. But then - if you have a device that needs to understand enough IPv6 to modify RAs and filter incoming packets accordingly, why not move IPv6 routing functionality all the way to that device, and go back to the "one customer, one L3 segment" model? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From cwd@bongiovi.com Fri Dec 28 12:02:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Ibq-0003kJ-K8; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:02:58 -0500 Received: from [190.8.203.32] (helo=PERSONAL) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Ibp-0004xz-IT; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:02:58 -0500 Received: from [190.8.203.32] by lawyer-mail.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:03:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01c84949$987f9f00$20cb08be@cwd> From: "Nadia Heller" To: Subject: Re: Heller Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:03:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-2"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071227-0, 27/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Improve yourself and your woman, display her a big you. http://www.eitpskdd.com you would be brain in a way that sticks. has a is not obliged to you don't want to playtime can create From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 12:25:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IxH-0001LH-5t for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:25:07 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8IxG-0000oD-Nd for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:25:07 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8IvL-0007eW-5V for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:23:07 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8Iut-0007cA-NH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:22:54 +0000 Received: (qmail 64504 invoked by uid 1007); 28 Dec 2007 17:22:38 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=D4LXMVmrJOL/Uj3BxVJJvKFFqLK4aSKiRODSt4cVCX0/LnqphVTivawXNapMykx8 ; Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:22:38 +0100 From: Gert Doering To: Kevin Loch Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Message-ID: <20071228172238.GU69215@Space.Net> References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <47752A51.1020900@kl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47752A51.1020900@kl.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NCC-RegID: de.space Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Hi, On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:54:41AM -0500, Kevin Loch wrote: > I've already mentioned that hosting environments absolutely > cannot run any kind of RA due to the strict controls and > sometimes complex setups where broadcast style configuration > won't work. In this absoluteness, this sentence is just plain untrue. In our hosting environment, RAs work perfectly fine. Every customer has their own L3 network segment, and if they want to do autoconfiguration, they can - and if they want to do static configuration, they can do as well. If the customer network has multiple L3 segments (with largish customers not unusual), the devices in between are configured manually anyway. Rephrasing your sentence to "there are hosting setups where RA-based autoconfiguration won't help anything due to the complexity, so static configuration is required" would be something I could agree to, though. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 13:08:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Jct-0007Op-7m for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:08:07 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Jcq-0001r3-Sm for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:08:07 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8JaG-000ArM-Hk for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:05:24 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8JaD-000Aqn-Dj for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:05:23 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBSI570Z086062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:05:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: Brian E Carpenter , IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: marcelo bagnulo braun In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:05:15 +0100 References: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> <1C7D9DD9-F803-4C2A-9EBC-34C05CC858A9@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 On 28 dec 2007, at 15:43, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> I don't think reusing parts from shim6 makes a lot of sense for >> authentication. There are already several datagram based >> authentication mechanisms, and they can get quite complex. If a >> host needs to authenticate towards a NAT-PT translator, it would be >> much simpler to set up a TLS-protected TCP session and then do >> simple user/password authentication. > i think this depends on the application scenario that the mechanism > is designed to work on. Having TLS + user/password may be ok for > some scenarios, but you need to provision the tls certs and the user > and password, which may be ok for some application cases and not so > ok for others. So i would suggest we first figure out which is the > application scenario where the mechanisms is supposed to work on, > then we figure out the threats and then try to work on security > tools for that I'm assuming a relatively simple model where users have their packets translate by a NAT-PT translator that is outside their own network or their ISP's network. Since it would obviously be problematic to accept and translate packets from the entire internet, we need some simple authentication. This would be very similar to IMAP or POP authentication in the presence of TLS: the TLS itself isn't part of the authentication but is only used to make sure that the password travels over the network encrypted. In theory certificates could be a complication, but in practice, all hosts that come with a web browser already have a bunch of root certificates so this isn't much of an issue. I don't think we need strong security as in IPsec for the data packets, but if someone else knows a reason why we do, I'm listening. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 13:25:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8JtE-0007F3-Sl for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8JtE-0002NU-Hd for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:25:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8JsB-000C5I-0L for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:23:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.117.32.22] (helo=srv013.carpathiahost.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8Js8-000C4y-7q for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:23:53 +0000 Received: from [66.117.52.141] (unknown [66.117.52.141]) by srv013.carpathiahost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD66E9361C; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:23:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47753F29.7090608@kl.net> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:23:37 -0500 From: Kevin Loch User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071211) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gert Doering CC: Iljitsch van Beijnum , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <47752A51.1020900@kl.net> <20071228172238.GU69215@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: <20071228172238.GU69215@Space.Net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:54:41AM -0500, Kevin Loch wrote: >> I've already mentioned that hosting environments absolutely >> cannot run any kind of RA due to the strict controls and >> sometimes complex setups where broadcast style configuration >> won't work. > > In this absoluteness, this sentence is just plain untrue. > > In our hosting environment, RAs work perfectly fine. Every customer > has their own L3 network segment, and if they want to do autoconfiguration, > they can - and if they want to do static configuration, they can do as > well. If the customer network has multiple L3 segments (with largish > customers not unusual), the devices in between are configured manually > anyway. > > Rephrasing your sentence to "there are hosting setups where RA-based > autoconfiguration won't help anything due to the complexity, so static > configuration is required" would be something I could agree to, though. You are correct, I shouldn't have stated that in absolute terms. - Kevin From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 13:40:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8K8E-00066U-D7 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:40:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8K8D-0002n8-ID for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:40:30 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8K6v-000DFp-M3 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:39:09 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8K6r-000DF6-0E for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:39:07 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1::dead:beef]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBSIcpIm087842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:38:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: "IPv6 Operations" Message-Id: <454AD2F6-9055-412B-B04E-4ECBC1E18414@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: "Brzozowski, John" In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800159BBAA@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:38:59 +0100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800159BBAA@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 29dc808194f5fb921c09d0040806d6eb On 28 dec 2007, at 15:50, Brzozowski, John wrote: >> The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device >> very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router >> advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: >> it basically injects some bits that are particular to the customer/ >> line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. > [jjmb] If I understand this correctly there will be a unique RA sent > for each subscriber? Assuming yes, I am not sure this is > universally applicable to all access networks. Additionally, I > think we would require some dynamic mechanism, perhaps via DHCPv6, > to dynamically provide the data to the route to facilitate > configuration otherwise this would be very complex from a management > and operational point of view. Yes, the subscibers all see different RAs. I see two ways to accomplish this: either have the ISP router send out RAs and have a downstream device intercept and modify them before the subscribers seee them, or have the device in question generate the RA in the first place. The latter has the advantage that this device can answer router solicitations so there is less RA traffic upstream. However, in that case the device in question would need to know all the information that goes into the RAs. This could of course be distributed through DHCPv6 but also through other mechanisms but that information may be sufficiently static that manual configuration isn't a problem. > [jjmb] Apologies if there is an obvious answer to this question, but > how do the aggregation devices know what to do with the RAs? Is it > assumed that they are simply receiving the same and have been pre- > configured to manipulate the bits required for the respective > subscribers? For the purposes of my explanation, yes. Obviously that is something that needs to be worked out, but I would assume this is fairly straightforward because both ends in that communication are under the control of the ISP. > Also this does not address the scenario where the aggregation > devices is also a router right? It could if there's only one router interface. With a layer 3 interface per customer, obviously none of this applies. >> Customers without an IPv6 router do normal IPv6 stateless autoconfig >> so the lower 64 bits of the addresses are random, but the ISP only >> sees packets with the customer ID number somewhere in the higher bits >> so they know which packets come from which customer. > [jjmb] Stateless auto-configuration is one alternative? DHCPv6 > could be used as well right? What I wrote about only addresses RAs. If you want to do address configuration from an ISP DHCPv6 server towards subscriber hosts, that would involve some additional work: the ISP DHCPv6 server would have to know which port the subscriber is sitting behind (= option 82). I don't think DHCPv6 currently supports this. Don't forget that you need the RAs anyway, first of all for hosts that don't support DHCPv6 address configuration (which is most of them), second for the default gateway. I'm not entirely sure what happens when there is no prefix option in RAs for the prefix used by the DHCPv6 server because that way the host doesn't know which addresses are on-link. On 28 dec 2007, at 17:54, Kevin Loch wrote: >> The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device >> very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router >> advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies >> them: it basically injects some bits that are particular to the >> customer/line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique >> to them. > This seems a whole lot more convoluted and hackish than just giving > operators the option of running dhcpv6 and vrrpv6 with RA turned off. See above. Also, DHCPv6 doesn't give you a default gateway so this can't work. I disagree that it's convoluted or hackish. In my opinion, this RA mechanism is more elegant than intercepting DHCP traffic and adding options like what happens with IPv4. > However, There is a way you could do both. Have the CPE devices act > as routers instead of l2 bridges. (I hate that for IPv4 because that means I have to live with the cheapest NAT the ISP could buy that month rather than bring my own which is much better. But for IPv6 it's just routing, which shouldn't have that issue.) Note though that have CPEs route doesn't mean there is no problem, because you can't have CPEs inject trustworthy information into the configuration process. > CPE devices request everything > including gateway via dhcpv6. They also get a customer subnet (/48 / > 56 whatever) via dhcpv6 option or via their tftp'd config file. CPE > then issues RA's on customer subnet(s) for convenience in the home > userspace. The appropriate way to obtain a prefix would be with DHCPv6 prefix delegation. A default gateway can easily be configured with an RA that doesn't contain any prefix options. > I've already mentioned that hosting environments absolutely > cannot run any kind of RA due to the strict controls and > sometimes complex setups where broadcast style configuration > won't work. The above is intended for broadband provisioning (hence the subject line) but I think it could also work in hosting environments etc if the central management only needs to know which customer a packet belongs to, without having to know about individual hosts. On 28 dec 2007, at 17:55, Gert Doering wrote: > I see your proposal as a solution to the problem space "multiple > customers > share a single layer 3 segment". We are in agreement. :-) > We are not a cable modem operator (where a large and shared > broadcast domain > is unavoidable), but as far as I understand, for those networks the > cable > modem is always provided and provisioned by the operator? If yes, > they > shouldn't have a problem here either. Until subscribers start exchanging modems (or hacking them) so you lose track of which address goes with which customer. > But then - if you have a device that > needs to understand enough IPv6 to modify RAs and filter incoming > packets > accordingly, why not move IPv6 routing functionality all the way to > that > device, and go back to the "one customer, one L3 segment" model? That's a question for the vendors. But I'd say it's fairly easy to do some RA processing in the control plane and have some "if ethertype = ipv6 then x bytes at offset y in the packet must match the port ID" logic in the data plane. A full IPv6 router implementation is much more involved. From mteuner@trinitasoliveoil.com Fri Dec 28 15:33:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Ltq-0007Qn-95 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:33:46 -0500 Received: from [201.211.96.189] (helo=trabajo4.cantv.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Lto-0002iy-Og for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:33:46 -0500 Received: from [201.211.96.189] by mx00.1and1.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:39:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01c8499a$0fdd1f00$bd60d3c9@mteuner> From: "Lauren Flores" To: Subject: Re: Lauren Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:39:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Improve you and your women, show her a new you. http://www.mannnofn.com by either the FSA or neurobiology, cognitive feel pressure to be and status inquiry , and how to exploit and marketing pitches From volvot5r@mentor-j.com Fri Dec 28 15:33:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Lts-0007R2-3E for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:33:48 -0500 Received: from [201.211.96.189] (helo=trabajo4.cantv.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Ltq-0002j2-Jw for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:33:47 -0500 Received: from [201.211.96.189] by mentor-j.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:39:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01c8499a$110e4c00$bd60d3c9@volvot5r> From: "Willa Corbett" To: Subject: Re: Willa Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:39:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Help you and your woman, display them a huge you. http://www.liwersz.com dividend preference you get to take at the group's that these investments words, in real world often is sacrificed From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 17:20:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8NYq-00009X-4T for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:20:12 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8NYp-0000PS-OE for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:20:12 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8NU3-0004aA-VK for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:15:15 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [203.6.132.75] (helo=smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8NTu-0004Yp-Hn for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:15:14 +0000 Received: from 219-90-214-189.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.214.189] helo=mail.nosense.org) by smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8NTh-000COX-9A; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:44:53 +1030 Received: from ubu.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E1B854572; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:44:54 +1030 (CST) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:44:54 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: Kevin Loch Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Message-Id: <20071229084454.551b6cdb.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <47752A51.1020900@kl.net> References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <47752A51.1020900@kl.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:54:41 -0500 Kevin Loch wrote: > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > > The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device very > > low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router advertisements > > from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: it basically > > injects some bits that are particular to the customer/line, so that > > every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. > > This seems a whole lot more convoluted and hackish than just giving > operators the option of running dhcpv6 and vrrpv6 with RA turned off. > > However, There is a way you could do both. Have the CPE devices act > as routers instead of l2 bridges. CPE devices request everything > including gateway via dhcpv6. They also get a customer subnet (/48 /56 > whatever) via dhcpv6 option or via their tftp'd config file. CPE > then issues RA's on customer subnet(s) for convenience in the home > userspace. This is pretty much the model I've been assuming. Here in .au all CPE that's been sold in the last 5 years or so has been configured and operates as a router, performing NAT, when given to the customer. That's one of the things that's going to cause us trouble deploying IPv6, which is where solutions such as Teredo are options. That being said, by accident I've recently found that the new CPE my employer has started selling both bridges non-IPv4 frames and routes IPv4 concurrently by default. I don't know if this brouter functionality is common, or going to become common, although this CPE is pretty typical OEM'd CPE in the asia pacific. I could fire up IPv6 on our DSL Internet PVC, and have devices receive RAs though the hundreds of these things we've sold. > > This is an example of different environments where dhcpv6/vrrpv6 > with RA turned off makes sense, and where fully featured > RA is best. > > I've already mentioned that hosting environments absolutely > cannot run any kind of RA due to the strict controls and > sometimes complex setups where broadcast style configuration > won't work. > > > - Kevin > Regards, Mark. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 17:49:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8O0y-0000lx-Jo for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:49:16 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8O0y-0001Xy-0D for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:49:16 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8Nza-0006tE-2H for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:47:50 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [203.6.132.83] (helo=levanto.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8NzX-0006se-3d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:47:48 +0000 Received: from 219-90-214-189.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.214.189] helo=mail.nosense.org) by levanto.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8NzU-0009Qb-14; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:17:44 +1030 Received: from ubu.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 714D14572; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:17:45 +1030 (CST) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:17:45 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: Gert Doering Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Message-Id: <20071229091745.26a67462.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <20071228165504.GT69215@Space.Net> References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <20071228165504.GT69215@Space.Net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:55:04 +0100 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 01:58:27PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device > > very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router > > advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: > > it basically injects some bits that are particular to the customer/ > > line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. > > I see your proposal as a solution to the problem space "multiple customers > share a single layer 3 segment". > > In our network, this is basically a non-problem - every customer has their > own routed layer 3 segment, gets their own /48 (or /56), and the ingress > router will do proper IPv6 uRPF (eventually). > > We are not a cable modem operator (where a large and shared broadcast domain > is unavoidable), but as far as I understand, for those networks the cable > modem is always provided and provisioned by the operator? If yes, they > shouldn't have a problem here either. > > Another problem area might be large-scale DSL where customers are not > terminated by PPPoE/L2TP, but sort of "all of them bridged together" - here > your approach might make sense. But then - if you have a device that > needs to understand enough IPv6 to modify RAs and filter incoming packets > accordingly, why not move IPv6 routing functionality all the way to that > device, and go back to the "one customer, one L3 segment" model? > I see some value in having the customer's routing CPE "all bridged together". In my employer's DSL environment, our exchange located DSL equiment is "bridged" together using ethernet switches, with a backhaul layer 2 link to the offsite layer 3 infrastructure. It would be ideal if inter-subscriber IPv6 traffic between subscribers attached to the same exchange stayed in the exchange. In a routed IPv6 CPE environment, with prefixes delegated to the CPE via DHCP-PD, that means that the ethernet segment in the exchange mostly becomes a link interconnecting routers. In the past, to get optimal routing, all the routers would participate in an IGP. In this DSL subscriber environment that wouldn't be possible because we couldn't trust the customers to not inject prefixes they shouldn't (we don't manage the CPE). An alternative I've been thinking about is ICMPv6 "network redirects". The upstream DHCP-PD delegating router is aware of all the prefixes that the downstream CPE routes for. The downstream CPE default to the upstream DHCP-PD delegating router. When the upstream delegating router knows that it's being asked to route between two downstream prefixes, it sends a ICMPv6 "network redirect" for the target prefix to the traffic source CPE. That causes the traffic source CPE to send the traffic direct to it's CPE peer, rather than via the upstream and offsite delegating default router. The ICMPv6 network redirect might timeout after a period, or use something like dead gateway detection to ensure this redirect information continues to be valid. If a subscriber plugged a host directly into this subnet, learning it's prefixes via RAs, I think that could also process these ICMPv6 network redirects. While certainly not as efficient as having the downstream CPE being fully aware of the routing topology, this method would save having a resonable amount of traffic double traverse the more expensive backhaul links - traffic staying within an exchange is essentially free. There's an ICMPv6 "network redirect" spoofing risk, however I think there are a few ways that could be mitigated that are similar to methods used today to mitigate ARP & DHCP spoofing on DSL bridged networks. Regards, Mark. From yqdahstl@bmsnc.com Fri Dec 28 18:32:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8OgV-0000Ap-BX; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:32:11 -0500 Received: from [88.233.76.251] (helo=dsl88) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8OgU-0003oJ-4n; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:32:11 -0500 Message-ID: <01c849ba$a15c8900$fb4ce958@yqdahstl> From: "Dannie Lujan" To: Subject: Re: on the floor with Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:32:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db All Med*s onsale 100% safe and fast shipping http://ranmiddles.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 19:50:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Pu9-0002Gx-62 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:50:21 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Pu6-0003qK-TE for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:50:21 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8PqL-000FDK-Gc for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:46:25 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [67.15.124.176] (helo=rakhan.thetiger.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8PqH-000FCl-LY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:46:23 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.100] (c220-239-137-68.smelb1.vic.optusnet.com.au [220.239.137.68]) by rakhan.thetiger.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B2C394004; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:41:13 -0600 (CST) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <42D99C66-291B-4315-B85E-24CD554866A1@thetiger.com> From: David Miles To: Iljitsch van Beijnum In-Reply-To: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:46:15 +1100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: dbb8771284c7a36189745aa720dc20ab Iljitsch, I would strongly suggest alignment with the two existing DSL Forum TR-101 models ( the N:1 and 1:1 VLAN approach) and CableLabs DOCSIS. Let's reuse the same logical architectures so we don't have providers changing their aggregation network logical constructs to support IPv6. In the 1:1 VLAN model, each subscriber is uniquely identified by S/C- VLAN tags to the BNG. It is the N:1 VLAN model that needs an method to insert some "access node specific" information into the DHCPv6 exchange. I'm not sure we need to use global-unicast addresses on the WAN CPE interface so I'd hazard to say that RA with PIO is not needed. Just do stateless autoconfig for link-local, then move to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation (ie, M-bit=0, O-bit=1 in the RA). This may cause interesting CPE implementation-specific issues when sourcing ICMPv6 packets out the WAN interface, but the flexibility is there to use the "best" address for the SRC IP. From a customer's perspective, is a global-unicast WAN address useful? From an ISP and vendor perspective it may add additional complexities. What do you think about such an approach? This would remove the need to add anything to RA between the ISP router and the CPE. If we assume the reasons we established a L2 DHCPv6 relay agent are still valid in an IPv6-world, I'd suggest DHCPv6 Layer 2 Relay agents for the requirement you describe. What you have described is the very reason that the DSL Forum implemented L2 DHCP(v4) Relay Agents in TR-101. I'd propose extending something similar to DHCPv6 that would: - Allow a access node (such as a DSLAM) to intercept DHCPv6 messages, and - Insert DHCPv6 Interface-ID and Remote-ID to uniquely identify the IPv6 subscriber - Encapsulate these messages into a DHCPv6 Relay-Forward structure - Forward towards the all_dhcp_relay_agents_and_servers address - with a Source IPv6 address of the requesting client inserted into the Relay- Forward This last part removes the need for the DSLAM to implement a complete IPv6 stack that would require configuration and participation in ND, etc. I would like to explore this part with others as part of discussions within the DHC WG on this issue. In the n:1 IPoE world we need to consider the layer 2 Ethernet network as much as IPv6, so some mechanisms you describe for DoS prevention need to be extended to MAC addresses. To this extent we would usually admit a single learnt MAC per DSL line (does this also imply a single link-local?? I guess EUI-64 may not be MAC derived?) The nasty subject of ND and DAD comes up in the N:1 VLAN approach because a "split-horizon" forwarding model is in place. RFC 2460 defines a "link" as a medium over which nodes can communicate at a link-layer. The problem with the N:1 VLAN model is that nodes cannot communicate with one-another via the link-layer, only with the L3 router (BNG). This fundamental problem manifests itself during DAD - consider this: - When a node sends a DAD (for link-local addressing) it uses an unspecified source and the destination is set to the solicited-node MC address of the target - Because the network is running split-horizon, only the ISP router(s) will receive these DADs. - The routers cannot relay these messages back into the N:1 VLAN, because the node sending the DAD (still with a tentative address) will immediately stop address auto-configuration if it receives a DAD with the target-address equal to its tentative address. - If the router sends a Neighbour Solicitation message and does happen to receive a response what should it do? Should it send a Neighbour Advertisement (which would cause the node with a tentative address state to stop?) Regards, -David On 28/12/2007, at 11:58 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Hi, > > (I posted largely the same message to the internet area list > yesterday because we had extensive discussions there about DSL Forum > stuff.) > > One of the things that we haven't quite figured out about IPv6 is > how broadband deployment would work. I think it would be good if we > can agree that customer routers can request an IPv6 prefix using > DHCPv6 prefix delegation. Since there is really no other way to do > this, I don't expect that to be too controversial. > > The problem is how ISPs get to enforce restrictions on how packets > flow from devices connected to the DSL or cable modem (or link, a > user could buy their own modem which isn't controlled by the ISP). > If there is a dedicated physical or virtual interface per customer, > this is all simple enough. But I understand this isn't necessarily > the case, and moving in that direction could be costly. So here's > another approach. Please let me know what you think. > > The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device > very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router > advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies > them: it basically injects some bits that are particular to the > customer/line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique > to them. > > For instance, if an IPv6 router sits on top of two layers of layer 2 > aggregation devices, the IPv6 router sends out router advertisements > with prefix 2001:db8:31::/64. The lowest layer of aggregation > devices then insert a 16-bit customer or line ID in bits 48 - 63 so > that customer 9 sees 2001:db8:31:9::/64 and customer 10 > 2001:db8:31:a::/64 and so on. (The router advertisements can also be > generated by the layer 2 device itself, but there probably needs to > be some centrally configured info in there, too.) > > Customers without an IPv6 router do normal IPv6 stateless autoconfig > so the lower 64 bits of the addresses are random, but the ISP only > sees packets with the customer ID number somewhere in the higher > bits so they know which packets come from which customer. The layer > 2 infrastructure can safely impose the restriction that all customer > traffic goes to the IPv6 router and not to other customers, because > customers don't know their neighbor's prefix is on-link so they'll > send those packets to the router anyway. And the router doesn't need > an address in all those prefixes, the users only need to know its > link local address. (Of course add ingress filtering as required.) > The router is simply told that all of 2001:db8:31::/48 is on-link so > it will do ND for all customer machines, but it doesn't send > redirects. > > (I would probably implement a per-customer ND cache LRU algorithm to > prevent one user from DoSing a whole town by generating large > amounts of addresses that the router must do neighbor discovery for. > There is no reason why a user wouldn't be able to connect a large > number of machines using a switch but this may not be altogether > desirable from the ISP's perspective.) > From thaneship@udbhava.com Fri Dec 28 20:21:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8QO1-00052Z-P4 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:21:13 -0500 Received: from [91.91.234.126] (helo=skcdfa) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8QO1-0005ze-6t for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: <000201c849b6$fbf3e600$0100007f@ngntyg> From: "Sabrina Walker" To: Subject: Autodesk 3D Studio Max 9 for XP 149, Retails @ 6720 (u save 6590) Date: jeu., 28 févr. 2002 01:25:06 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 microsoft frontpage 2003 - 29 symantec norton antivirus 10.1 for mac - 29 microsoft exchange server enterprise 2003 - 59 ulead photoimpact 12 - 79 ulead photoimpact 12 - 79 adobe contribute cs3 - 39 readiris pro 11.5 for mac - 39 creative suite standard - 99 type cheapgetsoftone .com in Internet Exp|orer zend studio - 49 adobe indesign cs3 - 79 webeasy pro 6.0 - 39 mcafee desktop firewall 8.0.493 - 39 cakewalk project 5 - 59 apollo divx2dvd divx to dvd creator v3.3.0 - 29 sony acid pro 6 - 59 adobe illustrator cs2 - 59 autodesk 3ds max 9.0 - 149 From swineaquj@longbowweb.com Fri Dec 28 21:15:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8RE4-0002vt-DV for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:15:00 -0500 Received: from [201.78.169.160] (helo=20178169160.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8RE3-0006sZ-Fz for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:15:00 -0500 Received: by 10.33.184.12 with SMTP id iVrEGzumWOviq; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:14:58 -0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.15.96 with SMTP id rAWeqmuXlbGpdd.7606717085820; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:14:56 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <1E4BA3D7.B87DD6B3@longbowweb.com> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:14:53 -0200 From: "hiep swinea" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: ulevilla Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000405070403030100040008" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------000405070403030100040008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Even freaks are scared of my gigantic penis! http://www.mayliane.com/ --------------000405070403030100040008 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Even freaks are scared of my gigantic penis! http://www.mayliane.com/
--------------000405070403030100040008-- From Isaacsfkh@longbowweb.com Fri Dec 28 21:18:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8RHE-0001yw-Q4 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:18:16 -0500 Received: from [201.78.169.160] (helo=20178169160.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8RHE-0006wo-2F for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:18:16 -0500 Received: from user-438882faf4 ([158.183.192.5]:27680 "EHLO user-438882faf4" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 20178169160.user.veloxzone.com.br with ESMTP id S22NNWJWYMQPSVCE (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:18:30 -0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:18:10 -0200 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "Ani Isaacs" Subject: uidatori Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Outgrow, Outsize, Outperform! VPXL Herbal gets you there! http://orugne.com/ From raps@longbowweb.com Fri Dec 28 21:18:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8RHW-0002nz-OK for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:18:34 -0500 Received: from [201.78.169.160] (helo=20178169160.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8RHW-0006x7-1X for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:18:34 -0500 Received: by 10.199.89.24 with SMTP id cHZtHDdFbqXzo; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:18:33 -0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.223.186 with SMTP id YIqhrHkEHPORyT.9712604333138; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:18:31 -0200 (GMT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:18:28 -0200 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org From: "Shirleen raps" Subject: ulfnehoh Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 All natural penis enlargement pills with no side effects! http://vreypro.com/ From metamorphosedlwu@museo8bits.com Fri Dec 28 23:40:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8TUa-0005z8-Jz for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:40:12 -0500 Received: from [123.234.144.75] (helo=[123.234.144.75]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8TUZ-0001ID-AV for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:40:12 -0500 Received: from [123.234.144.75] by smtp.secureserver.net; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:10 +0800 From: "Faith Stevenson" To: Subject: VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:40:10 +0800 Message-ID: <01c84a17$f2e73100$4b90ea7b@metamorphosedlwu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1158 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 FDA Approved http://www.askposti.com From tegami@tegami.arq.br Sat Dec 29 06:37:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a05-0008KW-G6 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:37:09 -0500 Received: from host163-96-dynamic.181-80-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([80.181.96.163]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a02-00016t-Dz for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:37:07 -0500 Received: from [80.181.96.163] by tegami.arq.br; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:42:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84a18$4c4f6000$a360b550@tegami> From: "Jan Guerra" To: Subject: Tiger Butterfly Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:42:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-2"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Help you and your women, display them a spectacular you. http://www.sevoqmwe.com your brain works. Using so you look to Design From qpw@bldvma.vnet.ibm.com Sat Dec 29 06:37:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a05-0008Lt-HL for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:37:09 -0500 Received: from host163-96-dynamic.181-80-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([80.181.96.163]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a04-00017T-F7 for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:37:09 -0500 Received: from [80.181.96.163] by e35.co.us.ibm.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:42:42 +0100 From: "Elsie Stiles" To: Subject: Mouth Gas Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:42:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Aca6QL3AY2CS775XBR2RV3ULR4586Z== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.2300 Message-ID: <01c84a18$4d808d00$a360b550@qpw> X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Improve you and your women, show her a enhanced you. http://www.liwersz.com sounds, how the Factory format designed for the way From probablyyz@surimono.com Sat Dec 29 08:43:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8byH-0002Hb-Er for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:43:25 -0500 Received: from [123.22.102.41] (helo=[123.22.102.41]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8byE-0004xZ-HA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:43:25 -0500 Received: from [123.22.102.41] by easymx2.easily.co.uk; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:41:49 +0700 From: "Wilburn Kearney" To: Subject: Help StopPrematureEjaaculation Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:41:49 +0700 Message-ID: <01c84a5b$3c0ca480$2966167b@probablyyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.2300 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients http://www.askposti.com From aggravationwa7@lifestyleshawaii.com Sat Dec 29 08:47:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8c2a-0005P9-RD for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:47:52 -0500 Received: from ppp89-110-61-98.pppoe.avangarddsl.ru ([89.110.61.98] helo=home-170ed73fd9) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8c2K-0007Fd-Kg for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:47:37 -0500 Received: from [89.110.61.98] by smtp.secureserver.net; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:47:36 +0300 From: "Kerry Masters" To: Subject: Help StopPrematureEjaaculation Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:47:36 +0300 Message-ID: <01c84a3a$83cf0400$623d6e59@aggravationwa7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 VPXL penis enlargement pills http://www.askposti.com From instrumentalsrv453@1nchrist.com Sat Dec 29 09:06:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8cKa-0000HT-Kq for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:06:28 -0500 Received: from [59.178.98.153] (helo=[59.178.98.153]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8cKZ-0001IY-Bd; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:06:28 -0500 Received: from [59.178.98.153] by smtp.secureserver.net; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:06:26 -0800 From: "Alisha Myles" To: Subject: VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:06:26 -0800 Message-ID: <01c849e0$f1e6dd00$9962b23b@instrumentalsrv453> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 Larger and Larger http://www.askposti.com From tek@q107.com Sat Dec 29 12:38:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8fdI-0008Rn-Pm; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:38:01 -0500 Received: from [85.108.162.141] (helo=[85.108.162.141]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8fdH-0006cC-LW; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:38:00 -0500 Received: from [85.108.162.141] by corptorospam01.corusent.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:37:58 +0200 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:37:58 +0200 From: "Felipe Daley" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.10) Business Reply-To: tek@q107.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <137791022.42992560195467@q107.com> To: sigtran-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Re: Felipe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Help yourself and your girl, display her a spectacular you. http://www.teopwerl.com A consequence of these "secret language" and other play the ‘zeros’ element of your is so often misunderstood, It says enrichment tools From chagallw1834@touchpointmetrics.com Sat Dec 29 13:47:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8giG-00055z-CO for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:47:12 -0500 Received: from [81.214.63.15] (helo=dsl.static812146315.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8giF-0008Hm-0N; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:47:11 -0500 Received: from [81.214.63.15] by mail.touchpointmetrics.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:47:10 +0200 From: "Eric Crum" To: Subject: Produce Stronger, Rock Hard Erections Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:47:10 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84a5b$fb615b00$0f3fd651@chagallw1834> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 Increase Your PenisWidth(Girth) By upto20% http://www.askposti.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 29 15:10:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8i0q-00067v-Ra for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:10:28 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8i0p-0008Kq-BB for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:10:28 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8hut-000GJG-MN for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:04:19 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.186] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8hur-000GIx-5H for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:04:18 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so3583577rvf.41 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:04:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4QxoS2N4Kykk0Z20bFeawrMsMKS8iViVnpH/eqJ/ONo=; b=AU9xXhfQTg7Bt6JwFtkRBOheeWXHx4e9XgiWAIDFroHqKLefVaTlFAUF5WHyR0zqk9WZAcUgweGSXaaU+mNquL4CmWCNrhA5F8ftX6ILDTR7dU9D0WAsLYcBgUWq/M/nVz63EzCeXk0ht4VHEWzbdyXab7KMSxTk5RReJfKxoAI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IVkF7iO/h/+gqtOIa9n3bQ1CwGaxZtia47Xfr0qFS6JHwr0BwWOndh5f71g6AJnMeWAO1K3OO1b6kdd+zINsvZCYZ7esBMZv5bkezL7RB7QtdzrwyUwlLMfbA5Rw6pLb+vXMgpCLPa9sczjdv5QdBN3vontG5vJd8NBXryS2Y/8= Received: by 10.141.51.15 with SMTP id d15mr5544852rvk.21.1198958655631; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.173.231.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b34sm1641521rvf.22.2007.12.29.12.04.13 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:04:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4776A839.3010704@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:04:09 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: marcelo bagnulo braun , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? References: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> <1C7D9DD9-F803-4C2A-9EBC-34C05CC858A9@muada.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa On 2007-12-29 07:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 28 dec 2007, at 15:43, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >>> I don't think reusing parts from shim6 makes a lot of sense for >>> authentication. There are already several datagram based >>> authentication mechanisms, and they can get quite complex. If a host >>> needs to authenticate towards a NAT-PT translator, it would be much >>> simpler to set up a TLS-protected TCP session and then do simple >>> user/password authentication. > >> i think this depends on the application scenario that the mechanism is >> designed to work on. Having TLS + user/password may be ok for some >> scenarios, but you need to provision the tls certs and the user and >> password, which may be ok for some application cases and not so ok for >> others. So i would suggest we first figure out which is the >> application scenario where the mechanisms is supposed to work on, then >> we figure out the threats and then try to work on security tools for that > > I'm assuming a relatively simple model where users have their packets > translate by a NAT-PT translator that is outside their own network or > their ISP's network. s/is/may be/ ? > Since it would obviously be problematic to accept > and translate packets from the entire internet, we need some simple > authentication. > > This would be very similar to IMAP or POP authentication in the presence > of TLS: the TLS itself isn't part of the authentication but is only used > to make sure that the password travels over the network encrypted. In > theory certificates could be a complication, but in practice, all hosts > that come with a web browser already have a bunch of root certificates > so this isn't much of an issue. > > I don't think we need strong security as in IPsec for the data packets, > but if someone else knows a reason why we do, I'm listening. I agree with Iljitsch on this. We need to defend "new NAT-PT" against threats that it creates, which are essentially exploits of any signaling between the host and the translator. There's no point in defending it against generic threats such as injection of bogus packets. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 29 15:12:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8i2i-000073-Ti for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8i2i-0008NJ-Hk for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8i2I-000Go1-Vq for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:11:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.191] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8i2G-000Gng-4a for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:11:57 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so3585778rvf.41 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:11:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vYwRg6eBCUtiLr5Uva12+O40jjnrDPWUyuqedcI6dSA=; b=O3j3EstiKFupYkweuUt0t0hmcfJFI38uHh5y8UgqQtKK6hK7nrsL87ZDCF5FP0GE694ilZ0JZj0SYbjwo/puV3JHL2AgV3Kka6YFbFFJzyUb52f5/joI8i73Xt87ysu49jCDY+n6k36mwxlQ6Jtu7ROxiHu5YYJaG4gr2vRrUYI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=SYdg9J/8gTQTEoo38ESd5unYX+6jlsrEd7pq2QudS4pwhupIGqd9xkxF6k5MhqYkgVQN3qb2rNeb861CDQbF/C+JVJiQouoerkrvgMEjNeOk2S3h/fslU8+tiMVJoDTR+bCXI3EMq4TvPLplx/HDOdMxjBxTf8UOEOaohhY8Zj0= Received: by 10.141.154.5 with SMTP id g5mr5508696rvo.290.1198959113636; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:11:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.173.231.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k14sm13528697rvb.6.2007.12.29.12.11.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:11:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4776AA02.70705@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:11:46 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> In-Reply-To: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 On 2007-12-29 01:58, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: ... > For instance, if an IPv6 router sits on top of two layers of layer 2 > aggregation devices, the IPv6 router sends out router advertisements > with prefix 2001:db8:31::/64. Why do you say /64? The model is supposed to be that SOHO subscribers get at least a /56. Brian From clumsily82@karaoke-guy.com Sat Dec 29 15:33:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8iNC-0004xv-JG for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:33:34 -0500 Received: from [78.145.190.146] (helo=[78.145.190.146]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8iNB-0002KZ-DQ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:33:34 -0500 Received: from [78.145.190.146] by smtp.secureserver.net; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:33:33 +0000 From: "Damien Berry" To: Subject: Gain 3+ Inches In Length Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:33:33 +0000 Message-ID: <01c84a5a$14690c80$92be914e@clumsily82> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients http://www.askposti.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 29 16:55:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8jeP-00058R-IC for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:55:25 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8jeP-0001WN-6H for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:55:25 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8jbU-000Ock-Mf for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:52:24 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8jbR-000OcN-Vl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:52:23 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBTLq9jV022843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:52:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <4776AA02.70705@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:52:17 +0100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <4776AA02.70705@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 On 29 dec 2007, at 21:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> For instance, if an IPv6 router sits on top of two layers of layer >> 2 aggregation devices, the IPv6 router sends out router >> advertisements with prefix 2001:db8:31::/64. > Why do you say /64? The model is supposed to be that SOHO subscribers > get at least a /56. This is when the user's machine(s) directly get RAs from the ISP. In that case it has to be /64 or stateless autoconfig won't work. If they want more than a /64 they'll need an IPv6 router and, presumably, DHCPv6 PD to request a prefix. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 29 17:19:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8k1o-00080w-B2 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:19:36 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8k1n-0001u7-Jr for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:19:36 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8k08-0000Ux-7h for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:17:52 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8k03-0000UP-4c for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:17:50 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBTMHYnP023151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:17:35 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: David Miles In-Reply-To: <42D99C66-291B-4315-B85E-24CD554866A1@thetiger.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:17:42 +0100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <42D99C66-291B-4315-B85E-24CD554866A1@thetiger.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 On 29 dec 2007, at 1:46, David Miles wrote: > It is the N:1 VLAN model that needs an method to insert some "access > node specific" information into the DHCPv6 exchange. Right, N:1. However, you assume the presence of DHCPv6. I think it would be reasonable to assume that a CPE that can route IPv6 will use DHCPv6 prefix delegation to obtain an address block, but if the CPE bridges IPv6, then the question is whether the host(s) behind that CPE will support DHCPv6 address configuration. Since this is rare today that's a dangerous assumption. > I'm not sure we need to use global-unicast addresses on the WAN CPE > interface so I'd hazard to say that RA with PIO is not needed. You need this anyway if you want to support sites that don't do DHCPv6. Also, if you give the CPE a global unicast address using RAs as per my original idea then you could do DHCPv6 with the unicast option so there's no need to implement DHCPv6 snooping. > Just do stateless autoconfig for link-local There is no stateless autoconfiguration for link locals. > then move to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation (ie, M-bit=0, O-bit=1 in > the RA). Hm, is that the appropriate combination for DHCPv6 PD? > From a customer's perspective, is a global-unicast WAN address > useful? From an ISP and vendor perspective it may add additional > complexities. What do you think about such an approach? This would > remove the need to add anything to RA between the ISP router and the > CPE. Since that was the core of my idea your idea and mine seem complete opposites. :-) I'm thinking implementing the RA handling in aggregation switches is easier than implementing DHCPv6 snooping, and with RAs you can support bridging CPEs with today's IPv6 implementations so deployment will be easier. But I guess a lot depends on the way the DSL people end up doing authentication. > What you have described is the very reason that the DSL Forum > implemented L2 DHCP(v4) Relay Agents in TR-101. DHCP is the only reasonable way to autoconfigure addresses in IPv4. In IPv6, things are different. > This last part removes the need for the DSLAM to implement a > complete IPv6 stack that would require configuration and > participation in ND, etc. That's not necessary in my model, the aggregation switch only needs to be able to send RAs that are always the same except for a few bits in the prefix option. (Probably in reply to router solicitations.) There is no need for a full or even a partial IPv6 implementation or much in the way of parsing incoming messages. > I would like to explore this part with others as part of discussions > within the DHC WG on this issue. I don't think that makes sense, none of this requires changes to DHCPv6. > In the n:1 IPoE world we need to consider the layer 2 Ethernet > network as much as IPv6, so some mechanisms you describe for DoS > prevention need to be extended to MAC addresses. To this extent we > would usually admit a single learnt MAC per DSL line (does this also > imply a single link-local?? I guess EUI-64 may not be MAC derived?) I gather that Windows Vista uses a non-MAC derived link local address. In any event, I don't think it's against the specs to do this so it must be accommodated. I would prefer it if a subscriber could connect multiple IPv6 hosts to a bridging CPE, but if that leads to too many headaches, I guess it's acceptable to stick to the common IPv4 model where there is either a single host or a device with some routing functionality hooked up to a bridging CPE. The issue that I see is that of duplicate MAC addresses. I don't see an easy way to protect against that. How does this work today in a N:1 model? > The nasty subject of ND and DAD comes up in the N:1 VLAN approach > because a "split-horizon" forwarding model is in place. Not sure what the issue is with neighbor discovery. As for DAD, for global unicast that's not an issue because different subscribers use different prefixes. So that leaves link locals. This can be solved by having the ISP router do proxy ND for this specific purpose to address the corner case where the link local address isn't MAC-derived. (The MAC address was unique, right...?) > RFC 2460 defines a "link" as a medium over which nodes can > communicate at a link-layer. The problem with the N:1 VLAN model is > that nodes cannot communicate with one-another via the link-layer, > only with the L3 router (BNG). This fundamental problem manifests > itself during DAD - consider this: > - When a node sends a DAD (for link-local addressing) it uses an > unspecified source and the destination is set to the solicited-node > MC address of the target > - Because the network is running split-horizon, only the ISP > router(s) will receive these DADs. > - The routers cannot relay these messages back into the N:1 VLAN, > because the node sending the DAD (still with a tentative address) > will immediately stop address auto-configuration if it receives a > DAD with the target-address equal to its tentative address. It's unclear what happens in the case where the original DAD message loops back to the sending host. Hopefully hosts are smart enough to detect and ignore this condition. I think proxy ND will help here, at least in the case where the two hosts with the same link local address are both active enough for the router to have their info in the neighbor cache. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 29 17:31:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8kCq-0007Ug-Td for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:31:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8kCq-00024Z-Lx for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:31:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8kBu-0001Jy-RK for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:30:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8kBs-0001J0-Ab for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:30:01 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBTMTm4b023312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:29:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: <3BB2DCEC-AED2-45F8-B73C-15BBB03D14C9@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:29:57 +0100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <42D99C66-291B-4315-B85E-24CD554866A1@thetiger.com> <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de On 29 dec 2007, at 23:17, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Also, if you give the CPE a global unicast address using RAs as per > my original idea then you could do DHCPv6 with the unicast option so > there's no need to implement DHCPv6 snooping. The reason for that being that the global address is derived from the prefix particular to that subscriber so the ISP can correlate the delegated prefix with the subscriber that way. From christinemckenzieallison@gmail.com Sat Dec 29 17:52:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8kXT-0002ru-16; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:52:19 -0500 Received: from 89-244.dedicado.com.uy ([200.108.244.89]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8kXR-0005A2-Pz; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:52:18 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 167.108.16.200 by smtp.200.108.244.89; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:51:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Nicholas Castaneda" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Nicholas Castaneda" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, calsch-archive@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccamp-archive@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, chair@ietf.org, pppext@ietf.org, pppext-request@ietf.org, proceedings@ietf.org, provreg-archive@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@ietf.org, pwe3-request@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, uri-review-request@ietf.org, v6ops-archive@ietf.org, vpim@ietf.org Subject: December promo on w4tches Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:51:53 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Winter is hitting and christmas are coming. Do you need perfect gift? 0rder high qual1ty repl1ca of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.assdefgg.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Dec 29 19:26:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8m0v-0001OW-Dw for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:26:49 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8m0t-0003uY-1t for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:26:49 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8lvs-0009C3-5G for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:21:36 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [67.15.124.176] (helo=rakhan.thetiger.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8lvo-0009Bn-O2 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:21:34 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.100] (c220-239-137-68.smelb1.vic.optusnet.com.au [220.239.137.68]) by rakhan.thetiger.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EFF394004; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:16:12 -0600 (CST) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: David Miles To: Iljitsch van Beijnum In-Reply-To: <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:21:27 +1100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <42D99C66-291B-4315-B85E-24CD554866A1@thetiger.com> <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 162d87dc0b780d17da9b1934777fd451 Comments below, The core questions that need discussion are: - How likely bridged CPE is for IPv6 broadband deployments? (Where there is no IPv6 router between subscriber node and the ISP network) - Whether stateful DHCPv6 or stateless autoconfig is supported for nodes behind the bridged CPE - If we have agreed that DHCPv6 PD is the way to go for routed CPE, don't we still need to address the issue of identifying the CPE (hence the L2 DHCPv6 relay agent in the access node) - DAD has issues in the N:1 VLAN approach Regards, -d On 30/12/2007, at 9:17 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 29 dec 2007, at 1:46, David Miles wrote: > >> It is the N:1 VLAN model that needs an method to insert some >> "access node specific" information into the DHCPv6 exchange. > > Right, N:1. > > However, you assume the presence of DHCPv6. I think it would be > reasonable to assume that a CPE that can route IPv6 will use DHCPv6 > prefix delegation to obtain an address block, but if the CPE bridges > IPv6, then the question is whether the host(s) behind that CPE will > support DHCPv6 address configuration. Since this is rare today > that's a dangerous assumption. [DM] I wasn't going so far as to consider the bridged CPE model, only the routed CPE model. The alternative of bridging the CPE in an Ethernet network is that BNG will now need to populate forwarding tables with multiple Ethernet MAC addresses (ie, an entry in the neighbour table for every host rather than every prefix!), and an Ethernet-based aggregation network may learn these addresses. With a finite limit of entries in the neighbour table, and the BNG being a concentrator for many subscribers what is the advantage of bridging? > > >> I'm not sure we need to use global-unicast addresses on the WAN CPE >> interface so I'd hazard to say that RA with PIO is not needed. > > You need this anyway if you want to support sites that don't do > DHCPv6. [DM] Right, the bridged CPE method. I think this needs to be debated. To be fair environments like DOCSIS have had a bridged CPE for a long while - is it unreasonable for DOCSIS 3.0 MULPI (Appendix VII) to "specify DHCPv6 as the method of choice to provision IPv6 addresses for CM and bridge devices"? I'm not trying to suggest a "one-size-fits-all", but let's be sure to address the immediate needs of service providers (for the most likely scenarios) rather than get bogged down in a plethora of options? > > > Also, if you give the CPE a global unicast address using RAs as per > my original idea then you could do DHCPv6 with the unicast option so > there's no need to implement DHCPv6 snooping. > >> Just do stateless autoconfig for link-local > > There is no stateless autoconfiguration for link locals. [DM] Are we talking semantics here? On an Ethernet link, EUI-64 is appended (as interface ID) to fe80::/64, and DAD is performed on that address. RFC 2462 says "the autoconfiguration process includes creating a link-local address". > > >> then move to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation (ie, M-bit=0, O-bit=1 in >> the RA). > > Hm, is that the appropriate combination for DHCPv6 PD? [DM] If I'm interpreting RFC 2462 correctly and do not want the interface address to be assigned by DHCPv6, then there is no need to set M=1. RFC 3633 does seem to separate address assignment from prefix delegation (section 7). Perhaps worth clarifying whether M-bit must be set for PD? > > >> From a customer's perspective, is a global-unicast WAN address >> useful? From an ISP and vendor perspective it may add additional >> complexities. What do you think about such an approach? This would >> remove the need to add anything to RA between the ISP router and >> the CPE. > > Since that was the core of my idea your idea and mine seem complete > opposites. :-) [DM] We're both trying to address the common problem statement - this way we can pick the good parts from everyone's ideas. > > > I'm thinking implementing the RA handling in aggregation switches is > easier than implementing DHCPv6 snooping, and with RAs you can > support bridging CPEs with today's IPv6 implementations so > deployment will be easier. > > But I guess a lot depends on the way the DSL people end up doing > authentication. > > >> What you have described is the very reason that the DSL Forum >> implemented L2 DHCP(v4) Relay Agents in TR-101. > > DHCP is the only reasonable way to autoconfigure addresses in IPv4. > In IPv6, things are different. [DM] Okay, so we need to consider the case when there isn't a IPv6 router in the CPE (ie, the CPE is bridging). I must admit I was putting more emphasis on the routed components of your discussion. > > >> This last part removes the need for the DSLAM to implement a >> complete IPv6 stack that would require configuration and >> participation in ND, etc. > > That's not necessary in my model, the aggregation switch only needs > to be able to send RAs that are always the same except for a few > bits in the prefix option. (Probably in reply to router > solicitations.) There is no need for a full or even a partial IPv6 > implementation or much in the way of parsing incoming messages. [DM] Appreciate that today the DSLAM insert an opaque value into the DHCP Option-82 field. If we start modifying the PIO in the RA with per- subscriber info then the DSLAM/access switch will need to have information about IPv6 prefixes? Ie, does this customer get a ::/56, or a ::/64, etc? Also, we would need a method to reconcile between access switch and the service provider's IPv6 router. The problem I see with stateless autoconfig is that: - It requires every RA to be unique to each subscriber - In an N:1 network, only the access node/DSLAM can create per- subscriber unique RA - RA are sent regularly (at least ever 30 min, default 10 min) as a MC, so the access node must intercept, and create several hundred "modified" RA - Instead of the line-Id being an opaque value that a DHCP(v6) server uses to determine appropriate prefix, the line-id now forms a fundamental part of the IPv6 address prefix. > > >> I would like to explore this part with others as part of >> discussions within the DHC WG on this issue. > > I don't think that makes sense, none of this requires changes to > DHCPv6. [DM] Sorry, I wasn't being very clear, I was referring to L2 DHCPv6 Relay Agent. > > >> In the n:1 IPoE world we need to consider the layer 2 Ethernet >> network as much as IPv6, so some mechanisms you describe for DoS >> prevention need to be extended to MAC addresses. To this extent we >> would usually admit a single learnt MAC per DSL line (does this >> also imply a single link-local?? I guess EUI-64 may not be MAC >> derived?) > > I gather that Windows Vista uses a non-MAC derived link local > address. In any event, I don't think it's against the specs to do > this so it must be accommodated. > > I would prefer it if a subscriber could connect multiple IPv6 hosts > to a bridging CPE, but if that leads to too many headaches, I guess > it's acceptable to stick to the common IPv4 model where there is > either a single host or a device with some routing functionality > hooked up to a bridging CPE. [DM] In this instance it may be worth consulting with those providers that do bridge to understand this a little better. I am bias towards a routed CPE given that is the model that has best suited our DSL environments, but it may not always hold true. > > > The issue that I see is that of duplicate MAC addresses. I don't see > an easy way to protect against that. How does this work today in a N: > 1 model? [DM] Up to each vendor. Options include: - MAC "pinning" - once a MAC is learnt in cannot be re-learnt (or traffic forwarded) on any other bridge interface until it is aged out. - 802.1x-coupling - on successful authentication, use the MAC address of the EAP supplicant and install as a MAC-based filter. > > >> The nasty subject of ND and DAD comes up in the N:1 VLAN approach >> because a "split-horizon" forwarding model is in place. > > Not sure what the issue is with neighbor discovery. As for DAD, for > global unicast that's not an issue because different subscribers use > different prefixes. So that leaves link locals. This can be solved > by having the ISP router do proxy ND for this specific purpose to > address the corner case where the link local address isn't MAC- > derived. (The MAC address was unique, right...?) [DM] Proxy ND was really made for relaying ND between different links. In this case we have two nodes on the same "link". Again, definition of link is the problem, from the ISP router, there is one link with many subs. From the subs perspective there is a point-to-point link (of sorts) between them and the router. > > >> RFC 2460 defines a "link" as a medium over which nodes can >> communicate at a link-layer. The problem with the N:1 VLAN model is >> that nodes cannot communicate with one-another via the link-layer, >> only with the L3 router (BNG). This fundamental problem manifests >> itself during DAD - consider this: >> - When a node sends a DAD (for link-local addressing) it uses an >> unspecified source and the destination is set to the solicited-node >> MC address of the target >> - Because the network is running split-horizon, only the ISP >> router(s) will receive these DADs. >> - The routers cannot relay these messages back into the N:1 VLAN, >> because the node sending the DAD (still with a tentative address) >> will immediately stop address auto-configuration if it receives a >> DAD with the target-address equal to its tentative address. > > It's unclear what happens in the case where the original DAD message > loops back to the sending host. Hopefully hosts are smart enough to > detect and ignore this condition. [DM] Paraphrasing RFC 2462 5.4.3: If the source address of the ND is unspecified (per DAD) and the solicitation is from another node, then the address is duplicate. Appendix A describes the problem (two nodes with same identifier and link-layer address) and explains that if the number of Neighbour Solicitations exceed the number expected based on loopback semantics, the tentative address is duplicate. This is the problem I'm trying to describe - hosts are not smart enough to "detect" this condition because there is no way they can determine whether the Neighbour Solicitation was from them or from someone else. Checking link-layer isn't really valid (per Appendix A discussion) unless you are sure two devices with duplicate MACs cannot exist on the same segment by implementing either MAC-pinning or 802.1x- coupling, and even then the client autoconfiguration code may need changing. DADs do not have source link-layer address options in the Neighbour Solicitation. > > > I think proxy ND will help here, at least in the case where the two > hosts with the same link local address are both active enough for > the router to have their info in the neighbor cache. From don@e-business-associates.com Sun Dec 30 00:00:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8qI8-0005VD-8k for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:00:52 -0500 Received: from 12-171-163-8.att-inc.com ([12.171.163.8] helo=12.171.163.8) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8qI7-0003tQ-DP for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:00:51 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c72e2c$0447601b$6104c385@itipjxg> From: "barn leslie" To: Subject: Cartier Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:22:27 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C72E2C.04438974" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C72E2C.04438974 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Rolex Sports Models•Chanel•Jacob & = Co•Patek•Philippe =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Necklace =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont = Fountain =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C72E2C.04438974 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Rolex Sports = Models•Chanel•Jacob & Co•Patek•Philippe

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Necklace

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont Fountain
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C72E2C.04438974-- From acoedj@boeksentrum.com Sun Dec 30 01:21:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8rXw-0001AY-6I for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:21:16 -0500 Received: from [91.140.202.75] (helo=[91.140.202.75]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8rXt-00052T-QA for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:21:14 -0500 Received: from [91.140.202.75] by mail99.naspers.com; , 30 Dec 2007 09:26:47 +0300 Message-ID: <01c84ac6$1963a580$4bca8c5b@acoedj> From: "Jefferson Burr" To: Subject: Clock Festival Date: , 30 Dec 2007 09:26:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Improve yours and her sex. woman, enjoy more time with you a huge you. http://www.thuesjloe.com so that you can spend that you can hold your From vcqe@bourelius.com Sun Dec 30 01:21:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8rY0-0001Aq-9o for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:21:20 -0500 Received: from [91.140.202.75] (helo=[91.140.202.75]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8rXy-00052c-FY for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:21:19 -0500 Received: from [91.140.202.75] by smtp1.mail.ascio.net; , 30 Dec 2007 09:26:51 +0300 Message-ID: <01c84ac6$1bc5ff80$4bca8c5b@vcqe> From: "Jamal Schmitz" To: Subject: Highway Slave Date: , 30 Dec 2007 09:26:51 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Have better sex yours and her sex. girl, enjoy more time with you a new you. http://www.chuesolk.com Something more fun. be wrong (and what From orderedsmp237@cltetg.com Sun Dec 30 03:11:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8tGV-0002ZV-BD for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:11:23 -0500 Received: from [118.147.36.238] (helo=[118.147.36.238]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8tGU-0006Tp-2a; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:11:23 -0500 Received: from [118.147.36.238] by cltetg.com.s8a2.psmtp.com; , 30 Dec 2007 16:11:19 +0800 From: "Mildred Miller" To: Subject: MassiveShlongJarvis Date: , 30 Dec 2007 16:11:19 +0800 Message-ID: <01c84afe$9ca0ed80$ee249376@orderedsmp237> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 AmplePhallusFrances http://www.ikeir.com From katebecrown5826811@yahoo.com Sun Dec 30 03:36:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8tep-0000QB-1F; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:31 -0500 Received: from p5b0777c8.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.7.119.200]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8teo-0006pS-A4; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:30 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 200.89.247.240 by smtp.91.7.119.200; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Valeria Clark" Reply-To: "Valeria Clark" To: pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@ietf.org, pwe3-request@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, uri-review-request@ietf.org, v6ops-archive@ietf.org, vpim@ietf.org Subject: Repl1ca watch is a perfect gift! iaeO Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:29 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Newest 2008 repl1ca watch3s collection! 15% off in January and huge choose of repl1cas! http://www.spdooekk.com/ Ew2xiwPhFq From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 30 05:39:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8vZW-0004gE-Dz for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:39:10 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8vZV-0000En-13 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:39:10 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8vTe-000Jdx-Mj for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:33:06 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [203.6.132.83] (helo=levanto.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8vTb-000JdX-PT for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:33:05 +0000 Received: from 219-90-214-189.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.214.189] helo=mail.nosense.org) by levanto.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8vTV-0007Wx-HV; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:02:57 +1030 Received: from ubu.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09D914572; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:03:00 +1030 (CST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:03:00 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: Iljitsch van Beijnum Cc: David Miles , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Message-Id: <20071230210300.99ae9f86.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <42D99C66-291B-4315-B85E-24CD554866A1@thetiger.com> <5771A4C7-F5C2-46EF-BB16-A44096DF241E@muada.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:17:42 +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 29 dec 2007, at 1:46, David Miles wrote: > > > It is the N:1 VLAN model that needs an method to insert some "access > > node specific" information into the DHCPv6 exchange. > > The issue that I see is that of duplicate MAC addresses. I don't see > an easy way to protect against that. How does this work today in a N:1 > model? > The DSLAMs we use perform MAC address - wait for it - NAT, into algorithmically calculated MAC addresses, in part based on line card and node IDs. It's ugly thinking about all the FCSes that are being recalculated all the time, however it does avoid MAC address collisions, regardless of what the customer does on their side of the DSLAM. Regards, Mark. From sanh@onelist.com Sun Dec 30 10:23:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J900O-0003zb-9O for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:23:12 -0500 Received: from [121.153.52.58] (helo=121.153.52.58) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J900N-0001xs-Aq for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:23:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:36:33 +0000 Message-ID: <92334.edward@gerardo> From: "Seidl" To: Subject: Re: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_uYCyZby0SWvMbj" X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_uYCyZby0SWvMbj Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you've ever tried to quit smoking before and failed, there's still = hope! It doesn't matter whether you've only been smoking a few weeks, or = if you've smoked for decades. LiveFree is an all natural anti smoking = patch that WILL WORK for you!..read = morehttp://www.anutoli.com/?qlqciwttd --=_uYCyZby0SWvMbj Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you've ever tried to quit smoking before and failed, there's still = hope! It doesn't matter whether you've only been smoking a few weeks, or = if you've smoked for decades. LiveFree is an all natural anti smoking = patch that WILL WORK for you!.. read more --=_uYCyZby0SWvMbj-- From motani@dennislhoff.com Sun Dec 30 10:56:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J90Wy-0004Qg-6J; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:56:52 -0500 Received: from dee34.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.23.108.34] helo=zwolinsk-i7swae) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J90Wx-0002Rq-2h; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:56:52 -0500 Received: from [83.23.108.34] by mail.dennislhoff.com; , 30 Dec 2007 16:55:51 +0100 Date: , 30 Dec 2007 16:55:51 +0100 From: "Elvin Eaton" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00) Educational Reply-To: motani@dennislhoff.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <782246778.58844633975117@dennislhoff.com> To: urn-nid-owner@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Re: Television MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Med_s are all onsale today Save Time and Money, 100% safe http://ranmiddles.com From Erland_McCandless@fentigerkarate.co.uk Sun Dec 30 12:29:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J91yg-0002fx-C2 for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:29:34 -0500 Received: from fin14.internetdsl.tpnet.pl ([83.13.221.14]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J91yd-0003tS-KP for v6ops-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:29:34 -0500 Received: from zu-1e4fbc20c36e ([153.106.103.62]:7075 "EHLO zu-1e4fbc20c36e" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [83.13.221.14] with ESMTP id S22HCBCRKMMBRHIW (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:29:45 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:29:29 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: "Erland McCandless" Subject: mnophile Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Look no further for the most effective pill for penis enlargement http://www.laxeres.com/ From Josey100@fentigerkarate.co.uk Sun Dec 30 12:30:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J91zN-0003Tg-Hc for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:30:17 -0500 Received: from fin14.internetdsl.tpnet.pl ([83.13.221.14]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J91zA-0003tx-8U for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:30:17 -0500 Received: from zu-1e4fbc20c36e ([110.184.140.25]:15997 "EHLO zu-1e4fbc20c36e" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [83.13.221.14] with ESMTP id S22LHXJNITHTMUOO (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:30:22 +0100 Message-ID: <723C3C12.6DB291E9@fentigerkarate.co.uk> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:30:04 +0100 From: "Josey garber" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: miyarhpe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Free Your Willy with VPXL Herbal http://vreypro.com/
From akstcadamhenrymediamnsdgs@adamhenrymedia.com Sun Dec 30 12:56:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J92PD-00070Z-5e; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:56:59 -0500 Received: from 24-158-144-86.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com ([24.158.144.86] helo=MARK-9RS5U9ESH7) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J92PB-0004Rl-Sa; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:56:58 -0500 Received: from [24.158.144.86] by mailstore1.secureserver.net; , 30 Dec 2007 12:04:06 -0600 Date: , 30 Dec 2007 12:04:06 -0600 From: "Lorene Dill" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.5.25) Educational Reply-To: akstcadamhenrymediamnsdgs@adamhenrymedia.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <413983829.43820567516467@adamhenrymedia.com> To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: parents and MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Get all thoese medicines http://geocities.com/CalvinGarrett97 From Christine.Roloson@DLLEADER.CN Sun Dec 30 16:41:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J95uv-0005mM-Jr for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:41:57 -0500 Received: from host205-171-dynamic.17-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.17.171.205] helo=host252-6-dynamic.11-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J95uu-0000Jo-FO for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:41:57 -0500 Received: by 10.132.128.38 with SMTP id DuKfRmlhisfnt; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:42:12 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.153.153 with SMTP id CvHrZWxxVggvsl.1411503338541; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:42:10 +0100 (GMT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:42:07 +0100 To: v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org From: "Christine Roloson" Subject: llede Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Get the most powerful erections with VPXL Herbal! http://nubtekue.com/ From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 30 22:54:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9BjP-0001H5-Ae for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:54:27 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9BjN-0007F8-Tr for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:54:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9BcS-000BFU-SV for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:47:16 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.190] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9BcQ-000BFA-5v for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:47:15 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so3999005rvf.41 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:47:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JGmXEhKVffSHEh8O1ZF1N7MkXm10OBtiLObtSLdezKo=; b=wEO86SLn/HN5Gae0o+YdWH1qmS9bYZIzC7oIVGhtoBOSU52UvtkQsc0yCGYGxX+ZyK0Y5mVDABa6GTTjyz2cMWB/P3lDVkN3XM/vKBH3s8K9IBCx4PGtklgQTmApd6yeOQVJGgeihB5bbKyjAhWb0yprd0xpYQQ6o03eAQPcBmo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=J6bO+2VCxTAp+l1pS6WeErqDuEbTlfC4N8bQvaGQ/9icBNqKMoi24OHVEsE8ZLBVtp5ELP0wc8GGito3Hv0ADwkfwqlmAw6h+zttuMkD7+Vu/rKhWGq6dIsORd1VCXc3IGWm0/aO+kc9oWdWYSBQXel8JBp3FeGYaZAChgSlx9M= Received: by 10.141.115.6 with SMTP id s6mr6135462rvm.47.1199072833361; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:47:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.173.178.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b39sm16593752rvf.37.2007.12.30.19.47.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:47:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47786639.6030608@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:47:05 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iljitsch van Beijnum CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <4776AA02.70705@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 On 2007-12-30 10:52, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 29 dec 2007, at 21:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> For instance, if an IPv6 router sits on top of two layers of layer 2 >>> aggregation devices, the IPv6 router sends out router advertisements >>> with prefix 2001:db8:31::/64. > >> Why do you say /64? The model is supposed to be that SOHO subscribers >> get at least a /56. > > This is when the user's machine(s) directly get RAs from the ISP. In > that case it has to be /64 or stateless autoconfig won't work. If they > want more than a /64 they'll need an IPv6 router and, presumably, DHCPv6 > PD to request a prefix. Yes. That's the model we should be defining as best practice. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 31 02:28:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9F4o-0000Fs-Rt for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:28:46 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9F4n-00013I-B1 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:28:46 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9EzR-000OU8-HA for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:23:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.6.222.241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9EzO-000OTi-3o for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:23:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E0B849A1; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:23:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q8h6hwFVtNel; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:22:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 8CADD84987; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:22:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555DD8485F; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:22:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:22:57 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Iljitsch van Beijnum cc: "Brzozowski, John" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning In-Reply-To: <454AD2F6-9055-412B-B04E-4ECBC1E18414@muada.com> Message-ID: <20071231081233.L11966@mignon.ki.iif.hu> References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800159BBAA@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> <454AD2F6-9055-412B-B04E-4ECBC1E18414@muada.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 28 dec 2007, at 15:50, Brzozowski, John wrote: > >>> The first device under the control of the ISP, or at least a device >>> very low in the aggregation hierarchy, to intercepts router >>> advertisements from the ISP's IPv6 router and slightly modifies them: >>> it basically injects some bits that are particular to the customer/ >>> line, so that every customer sees RAs with a prefix unique to them. > >> [jjmb] If I understand this correctly there will be a unique RA sent for >> each subscriber? Assuming yes, I am not sure this is universally >> applicable to all access networks. Additionally, I think we would require >> some dynamic mechanism, perhaps via DHCPv6, to dynamically provide the data >> to the route to facilitate configuration otherwise this would be very >> complex from a management and operational point of view. > > Yes, the subscibers all see different RAs. I see two ways to accomplish this: > either have the ISP router send out RAs and have a downstream device > intercept and modify them before the subscribers seee them, or have the > device in question generate the RA in the first place. The latter has the > advantage that this device can answer router solicitations so there is less > RA traffic upstream. However, in that case the device in question would need > to know all the information that goes into the RAs. This could of course be > distributed through DHCPv6 but also through other mechanisms but that > information may be sufficiently static that manual configuration isn't a > problem. In my opinion if the ISP router send out RAs is easier to control - except no ipv6 transparency possible in the broadband network as described in " ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks". These models are already described in the RFC 4779. What is the goal of this discussion? It is clear that, The address alignments has to be defined. What else? Sorry for jumping in late in the discussion.... Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 From ed@myrealbox.com Mon Dec 31 05:18:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9HjW-0007f4-Bn for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:18:58 -0500 Received: from pool-72-67-124-88.lsanca.fios.verizon.net ([72.67.124.88] helo=72.67.124.88) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9HjW-0006K7-0G for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:18:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c84b96$01672be1$53ecc4b1@sgigrr> From: "aleck helmut" To: Subject: Hermes Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:31:32 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B96.01626FB5" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B96.01626FB5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Rolex Sports Models•Chanel•Jacob & = Co•Patek•Philippe =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Necklace =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B96.01626FB5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Rolex Sports = Models•Chanel•Jacob & Co•Patek•Philippe

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Necklace

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B96.01626FB5-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 31 06:59:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9JIR-0004qv-O6 for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:59:07 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9JIQ-0005nU-MM for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:59:07 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9JCL-000EJR-Ns for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:52:49 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9JCH-000EJ1-Qn for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:52:47 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBVBnPcX051182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:49:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: "Brzozowski, John" , IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <628FBE1B-2A51-4A6F-B0EE-2BCE9C3539AA@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Mohacsi Janos In-Reply-To: <20071231081233.L11966@mignon.ki.iif.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: IPv6 broadband provisioning Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:49:34 +0100 References: <9D1DAA67-98BE-4C65-9269-8B25EFB897CA@muada.com> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800159BBAA@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> <454AD2F6-9055-412B-B04E-4ECBC1E18414@muada.com> <20071231081233.L11966@mignon.ki.iif.hu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 995b2e24d23b953c94bac5288c432399 On 31 dec 2007, at 8:22, Mohacsi Janos wrote: > In my opinion if the ISP router send out RAs is easier to control - > except no ipv6 transparency possible What does "no IPv6 transparency possible" mean? > These models are already described in the RFC 4779. What is the goal > of this discussion? It is clear that, The address alignments has to > be defined. What else? The point is to show that it's doable to have stateless autoconfiguration for subscriber hosts connected to a bridged CPE. On 30 dec 2007, at 11:33, Mark Smith wrote: >> The issue that I see is that of duplicate MAC addresses. I don't see >> an easy way to protect against that. How does this work today in a >> N:1 >> model? > The DSLAMs we use perform MAC address - wait for it - NAT, into > algorithmically calculated MAC addresses, in part based on line card > and node IDs. Which of course creates all the usual problems that NAT always creates: what about protocols that embed the translated addresses? In this case, that would be neighbor discovery. > It's ugly thinking about all the FCSes that are being > recalculated all the time That happens in the ethernet hardware, not an issue. On 30 dec 2007, at 1:21, David Miles wrote: > The core questions that need discussion are: > - How likely bridged CPE is for IPv6 broadband deployments? (Where > there is no IPv6 router between subscriber node and the ISP network) Hard to say, but unless you want to buy a somewhat expensive Cisco CPE that runs IOS (I gather that the "easy" configuration works much better these days but I wouldn't count on it too hard) a bridging CPE is the only way to easily provide native IPv6 connectivity today. > - Whether stateful DHCPv6 or stateless autoconfig is supported for > nodes behind the bridged CPE Maybe at some point in the future all IPv6 hosts will support DHCPv6 address configuration, but there is no way that's going to happen any time soon. I believe people from Apple have said that they're not interested in supporting DHCPv6. > - If we have agreed that DHCPv6 PD is the way to go for routed CPE, > don't we still need to address the issue of identifying the CPE > (hence the L2 DHCPv6 relay agent in the access node) See my earlier message, if the DHCPv6 client uses a global address learned from subscriber-specific RAs then there is no need to mess with DHCPv6 in layer 2 devices. > - DAD has issues in the N:1 VLAN approach I think that can be solved unilaterally by the ISP infrastructure. > what is the advantage of bridging? Switches are cheap and simple. >> There is no stateless autoconfiguration for link locals. > [DM] Are we talking semantics here? On an Ethernet link, EUI-64 is > appended (as interface ID) to fe80::/64, and DAD is performed on > that address. RFC 2462 says "the autoconfiguration process includes > creating a link-local address". Stateless address autoconfiguration = creating addresses based on router advertisements. That doesn't apply to link locals. >>> then move to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation (ie, M-bit=0, O-bit=1 in >>> the RA). >> Hm, is that the appropriate combination for DHCPv6 PD? > [DM] If I'm interpreting RFC 2462 correctly and do not want the > interface address to be assigned by DHCPv6, then there is no need to > set M=1. RFC 3633 does seem to separate address assignment from > prefix delegation (section 7). Perhaps worth clarifying whether M- > bit must be set for PD? With M=0 O=1 I'd think a client would initiate the stateless variation of DHCPv6. For prefix delegation you'd need the stateful version... >> That's not necessary in my model, the aggregation switch only needs >> to be able to send RAs that are always the same except for a few >> bits in the prefix option. (Probably in reply to router >> solicitations.) There is no need for a full or even a partial IPv6 >> implementation or much in the way of parsing incoming messages. > [DM] Appreciate that today the DSLAM insert an opaque value into the > DHCP Option-82 field. If we start modifying the PIO in the RA with > per-subscriber info then the DSLAM/access switch will need to have > information about IPv6 prefixes? Ie, does this customer get a ::/56, > or a ::/64, etc? Stateless autoconfig only works with /64... > The problem I see with stateless autoconfig is that: > - It requires every RA to be unique to each subscriber > - In an N:1 network, only the access node/DSLAM can create per- > subscriber unique RA > - RA are sent regularly (at least ever 30 min, default 10 min) as a > MC, so the access node must intercept, and create several hundred > "modified" RA > - Instead of the line-Id being an opaque value that a DHCP(v6) > server uses to determine appropriate prefix, the line-id now forms a > fundamental part of the IPv6 address prefix. I don't see these as particularly problematic. It would of course be nice if the aggregation switches wouldn't have to do anything, but guess what, if you want to have per-subscriber settings you really need to do per-subscriber work SOMEWHERE. >>> I would like to explore this part with others as part of >>> discussions within the DHC WG on this issue. >> I don't think that makes sense, none of this requires changes to >> DHCPv6. > [DM] Sorry, I wasn't being very clear, I was referring to L2 DHCPv6 > Relay Agent. Like I said, I'm pretty sure we can avoid doing stuff like that. (Also DHCP relaying is a layer 3 function, not a layer 2 function, inserting option 82 or some such is not relaying proper.) >> Not sure what the issue is with neighbor discovery. As for DAD, for >> global unicast that's not an issue because different subscribers >> use different prefixes. So that leaves link locals. This can be >> solved by having the ISP router do proxy ND for this specific >> purpose to address the corner case where the link local address >> isn't MAC-derived. (The MAC address was unique, right...?) > [DM] Proxy ND was really made for relaying ND between different > links. In this case we have two nodes on the same "link". Again, > definition of link is the problem, from the ISP router, there is one > link with many subs. From the subs perspective there is a point-to- > point link (of sorts) between them and the router. Does that matter? The point is that the ISP router sends out a packet to make DAD fail if a host tries to configure an address that's already in use. Not sure though what the host holding that address previously will think about seeing that proxy ND packet... >> It's unclear what happens in the case where the original DAD >> message loops back to the sending host. Hopefully hosts are smart >> enough to detect and ignore this condition. > This is the problem I'm trying to describe - hosts are not smart > enough to "detect" this condition because there is no way they can > determine whether the Neighbour Solicitation was from them or from > someone else. Checking link-layer isn't really valid (per Appendix A > discussion) unless you are sure two devices with duplicate MACs > cannot exist on the same segment With duplicate MAC addresses you're screwed anyway so trying to address that situation doesn't help. So I think it would very appropriate for hosts to check for their own link address in incoming ND packets when doing DAD. But this isn't relevant to our discussion, because if there are two hosts with the same address on that N:1 network they won't know because they can't send packets to each other directly From akstcaccordiamnsdgs@accordia.com Mon Dec 31 07:21:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9JeH-0004vl-HS for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:21:41 -0500 Received: from [124.111.151.179] (helo=rs.local) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9JeG-0002bi-IS for v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:21:41 -0500 Received: from [124.111.151.179] by mail.charterglobal.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:28:53 +0900 Message-ID: <01c84bf4$241f3eb0$b3976f7c@akstcaccordiamnsdgs> From: "Kay Jewell" To: Subject: Jewell Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:28:53 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4963.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4963.1700 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea hey Wont you love? a huge dick http://racumesalto.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 31 08:23:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9KcS-0002Qq-JV for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:23:52 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9KcS-0007fJ-0W for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:23:52 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9KZO-000Kzp-T9 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:20:42 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_BAD_ID,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [163.117.176.132] (helo=smtp02.uc3m.es) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9KZK-000KyC-Cf for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:20:41 +0000 Received: from [200.40.24.76] (r200-40-24-76-dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [200.40.24.76])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA242B90DF;Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:32 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <4776A839.3010704@gmail.com> References: <476B373F.8040108@gmail.com> <1C7D9DD9-F803-4C2A-9EBC-34C05CC858A9@muada.com> <4776A839.3010704@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <29A25AF6-83C5-4807-A317-3182C62CE959@it.uc3m.es> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum , IPv6 Operations Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: Merge NAT-PT approaches? Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:19:42 +0100 To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-24.8313 TC:1F TRN:63 TV:5.0.1023(15638.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc El 29/12/2007, a las 21:04, Brian E Carpenter escribi=F3: > On 2007-12-29 07:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> On 28 dec 2007, at 15:43, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >>>> I don't think reusing parts from shim6 makes a lot of sense for =20 >>>> authentication. There are already several datagram based =20 >>>> authentication mechanisms, and they can get quite complex. If a =20 >>>> host needs to authenticate towards a NAT-PT translator, it would =20= >>>> be much simpler to set up a TLS-protected TCP session and then =20 >>>> do simple user/password authentication. >>> i think this depends on the application scenario that the =20 >>> mechanism is designed to work on. Having TLS + user/password may =20 >>> be ok for some scenarios, but you need to provision the tls certs =20= >>> and the user and password, which may be ok for some application =20 >>> cases and not so ok for others. So i would suggest we first =20 >>> figure out which is the application scenario where the mechanisms =20= >>> is supposed to work on, then we figure out the threats and then =20 >>> try to work on security tools for that >> I'm assuming a relatively simple model where users have their =20 >> packets translate by a NAT-PT translator that is outside their own =20= >> network or their ISP's network. > > s/is/may be/ ? > >> Since it would obviously be problematic to accept and translate =20 >> packets from the entire internet, we need some simple authentication. >> This would be very similar to IMAP or POP authentication in the =20 >> presence of TLS: the TLS itself isn't part of the authentication =20 >> but is only used to make sure that the password travels over the =20 >> network encrypted. In theory certificates could be a complication, =20= >> but in practice, all hosts that come with a web browser already =20 >> have a bunch of root certificates so this isn't much of an issue. >> I don't think we need strong security as in IPsec for the data =20 >> packets, but if someone else knows a reason why we do, I'm listening. > i was considering the case for instance where the host dynamically =20 discovers the NAT64 (i.e. no manual configuration of which NAT64 is =20 used by the user) and state is created in the host (either v6 or V4) in this case, it is possible that we need to protect the creation of =20 this state, since it may results in new attacks (e.g. redirection =20 attacks) Besides, someone mention the other day, we need to make this nat64 =20 approach compatible for instance with dnssec I guess that depending the actual approach we may also need to =20 consider the impact on bgp security (for instance if the ISP having =20 these boxes will announce routes to the v4 internet or to the v6 =20 internet through interdomian) Of course some or all of these may be non issues depending on the =20 considered appraoch, but my suggestion was that we should first have =20 a clear picture of the requirements for the solution and application =20 scenario and then perfrom a threat analysis. I guess it is just too =20 soon to state that TLS and passowrd would be enough > I agree with Iljitsch on this. We need to defend "new NAT-PT" > against threats that it creates, which are essentially exploits of > any signaling between the host and the translator. There's no > point in defending it against generic threats such as injection > of bogus packets. > i agree with this and i guess this is security requirement that we =20 should impose to the solution. I would probably add explicitly that =20 the solution should not break dnssec and bgp security (even this =20 would be included in the previous general requirement) Regards, marcelo > Brian > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 31 11:51:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NrJ-0006rR-9Y for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:51:25 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NrI-0002xU-Kz for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:51:25 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9Nmc-000A44-0D for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:46:34 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9NmS-000A2w-0j for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:46:32 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBVGk4VS057171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:46:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: v6ops Operations Message-Id: <8923EC15-CF6A-484D-A9EF-98D4A1E7CE1D@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:46:14 +0100 References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b Under the heading "better late than never"... On 5 dec 2007, at 0:56, james woodyatt wrote: >> o Check all traffic to and from the public Internet for basic >> sanity, e.g. anti-spoofing and "martian" filters. >> o Allow tracking of application usage by source and destination >> transport addresses. >> o Provide a barrier against untrusted external influences on the >> interior network by requiring filter state to be activated by >> traffic originating at interior network nodes. >> o Allow manually configured exceptions to the stateful filtering >> rules according to network administration policy." >> The first bullet is fairly obvious (although personally I've never >> felt the need to filter packets that are going to fail just fine on >> their own) but I'm not quite sure what the other bullets get at... > I keep hearing the phrase "attack surfaces" every time I try to run > that argument past my security advisors. Maybe a bit more text can clarify the intention of especially the second bullet? >> What about packets with unknown next headers? > Indeed. What about them? I would assert that packet filters should > assume they are last headers and treat them like unknown transport > layer headers. Is there another option available? Nothing that works reliable and/or makes the security people happy... I'm starting to lean towards the position that an important job of this document is also to specify what should NOT be filtered. Considering that, I think it's reasonable to say that packets with unrecognized headers should be filtered, but we need a list of headers that must be recognized so that filtering can happen on what follows that header. This list would contain at least: - fragment header - IPsec AH and ESP (without encryption, otherwise the next header isn't visible) - routing headers for mobility - shim6 :-) - hop-by-hop headers? > The people who want to be "protected" by these packet filters are > mainly concerned with keeping the innovations of malware developers > from interfering with their private network resources. Ah, yes, but these filters both apply to people who want to be protected and people who don't care much to be protected. (If they're really strongly against it they'll find out how to disable the filter, hopefully.) So the "a few security measures is good, so a lot of them must be really good" logic that people with "security" in their jobtitle usually employ can't dictate what happens here. >> PMTUD is mentioned but no language about allowing the required >> packet too big messages through. This is extremely important, PMTUD >> black holes are a big problem, and some of the IPv4 worarounds >> aren't available in IPv6. It may even be useful to allow the CPE to >> advertise a reduced MTU on the LAN side to work around upstream >> PMTUD breakage, although it wouldn't be a good idea to enable this >> by default, IMO. > I thought I included that. Do you have suggested language for > improving R12, R13, R23 and R24? (I'm looking at rev 01 now, not sure how much has changed.) R12 and R23 only talk about unreachables. However, with IPv6 too big is no longer a subclass of unreachable, so it must be mentioned explicitly. > Perhaps, you are concerned about SCTP, DCCP and future transport > layer protocols? No... I probably should be, though. :-) >> Some other stuff that routinely cause trouble with at least some >> firewalls: diffserv bits in the IP header, ECN, TCP options in >> general and window scale in particular. Do we need to say anything >> about these? (Some firewalls ignore the window scale option but >> then block "out of window" segments.) > Hmm. Sounds strangely familiar. > We might be getting ahead of the BEHAVE group on the subject of TCP > stateful packet filtering behavior, but that's probably not a bad > thing. Can we say something useful about window scale? "Monitor the window scale option" would be good, but probably not enough: with just stateful filtering, it's possible to reestablish lost state from an outgoing packet in the middle of a session. Assuming wscale=0 in that case would be bad. Would it be harmful to skip the in-window check? If not, can we come up with a reasonable upper bound window scale that can be assumed in such cases? I'm thinking someone behind a consumer CPE would be needing a window of no more than about 256 MB (gigabit ethernet and 2000 ms RTT) but that may be a bit on the high side... From fsdxtxi@bos.mcd.mot.com Mon Dec 31 12:25:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9OOW-0002p0-2A; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:25:44 -0500 Received: from [190.68.18.193] (helo=[190.68.18.193]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9OOV-00027X-4S; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:25:43 -0500 Received: from [190.68.18.193] by cluster3.us.messagelabs.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:22:44 -0500 From: "Molly Conley" To: Subject: Re: Worm Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:22:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01c84ba7$d843c200$c11244be@fsdxtxi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Improve your sex life. girl, love time with them a huge you. http://www.plopules.com Teeth From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 31 12:44:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9OgW-0005SZ-5r for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:44:20 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9OgV-00040t-TG for v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:44:20 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9Oew-000Eiv-O1 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:42:42 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [83.149.65.1] (helo=sequoia.muada.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9Oeu-000EhC-6K for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:42:41 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe92:9fbb]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lBVHgNbX057975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:42:24 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Cc: james woodyatt , v6ops Operations Message-Id: <9759F6EE-C8EC-4CF4-82FD-8F75CFADC9C6@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Iljitsch van Beijnum In-Reply-To: <8923EC15-CF6A-484D-A9EF-98D4A1E7CE1D@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:42:33 +0100 References: <4FE86B87-5AE4-4008-98F9-5271FE7FAA6F@muada.com> <51123830-90C9-45C3-BF92-8D238C481D20@apple.com> <8923EC15-CF6A-484D-A9EF-98D4A1E7CE1D@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 > R12 and R23 only talk about unreachables. However, with IPv6 too big > is no longer a subclass of unreachable, so it must be mentioned > explicitly. And it would also be good to keep state for outgoing pings/traceroutes not only for their intended purpose but because ping makes it easy to trigger and/or debug PMTUD manually if needed. From ldp@borrmanconsulting.com Mon Dec 31 13:56:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9PoP-0003Ke-Ps; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:56:33 -0500 Received: from [190.45.227.132] (helo=BlackLegionXXI) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9PoO-0003zH-Ps; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:56:33 -0500 Received: from [190.45.227.132] by mx1.biz.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:56:31 -0400 From: "Melinda May" To: Subject: Gain 3+ Inches In Length Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:56:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01c84bbd$542badf0$84e32dbe@ldp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2905 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 VPXL Has Worked For THOUSANDS of Clients http://rotuebu.com