----- Original Message -----
From: "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" <itojun(_at_)iijlab(_dot_)net>
To: "Randy Bush" <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Matt Crawford" <crawdad(_at_)fnal(_dot_)gov>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representative of the real
world
I liked Tony Hain's suggestion that the future IETF terminal room/
wireless LAN ntworks should offer NATted IPv4 and plain IPv6, to
better reflect the choices available to much of the world.
i wish i could agree that they are, but the transition plan seems to
have a lot of nats in it. <sigh>
you should better practice using before IETF54 (Yokohama Japan),
as we may deploy IPv6-only terminal cluster :-):-):-)
seriously, with the address allocation policy/status in JP I guess
IETF54 term room may have to use IPv4 NAT or something alike.
If you use IPv6, you should be safe. So it's better to prepare today
than tomorrow.
itojun
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12342.html
VHS vs. BETAMAX....
----------------------------------
as a temporary measure I have configured tunnel to IIJ Palo Alto device.
the IPv6 prefix for the meeting room is 3ffe:507:1ff::/64.
it would be, of course, better to have ipv6 prefix from microsoft
research :-)
today we've got a router operated by MS research guys, using 6to4.
so my router have went away.
2002:836b:2505:5::/64
----------------------------------
Do you support the new TLDs ?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"
Jim Fleming
GO Nuclear....Drop the COM !
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.NZ.Registry
6:130 - NZ World