Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

To: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
Subject: Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:47:19 -0700
Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=534; t=1190299641; x=1191163641; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20ULA-C=20(Was=3A=20Re=3A=20IPv6=20will=20never=20fly=3 A=20ARIN=20continues=20to=20kill=20it) |Sender:=20 |To:=20<michael.dillon@bt.com>; bh=WKdv9TDqhbiP+RIi0hmcfpmDW7cld2+EXP4Gg3vydvI=; b=X7/Tmx83Qp+OingdPPDtujcYkSOcJjMv75wAzTQFzIWfOFVZ07wNmalp354QhEbxVC4FFsTG /xlZKpWxMPQM1fIf5it1XSGRfuXP147iktQW8tjSzIjH6NA4WLebvDQO;
In-reply-to: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0010D7AAD@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20070919165005.AF02D872C0@mercury.lcs.mit.edu><46F15A54.2010206@cs.utk.edu><200709192051.l8JKp1XV029400@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><46F1EEF8.5040901@cs.utk.edu> <200709201258.l8KCw3WF025088@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0010D7AAD@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>


On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:44 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

Not to mention sites that are more than 30 hops away from each other. I've seen traceroutes that go up to 27 hops so I imagine that the hopcount diameter is once again becoming an issue as it was prior to 1995.

That was in many respects a host problem - hosts initialized TTLS to 32, and in so doing limited themselves to that diameter. I believe most hosts now set the magic number to 64. Do we believe that we are pushing that boundary?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

References:
- Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
  - From: Noel Chiappa
- Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
  - From: Thomas Narten
- Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
  - From: Thomas Narten
- RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
  - From: michael.dillon

Prev by Date: RE: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Next by Date: Re: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)
Previous by thread: RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Next by thread: Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.