From kwoodside@alro.com Mon Dec 1 06:20:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409BF3A67F6 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 06:20:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -57.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-57.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvBJG6paVfOc for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 06:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from 102.Red-80-59-252.staticIP.rima-tde.net (102.Red-80-59-252.staticIP.rima-tde.net [80.59.252.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 18BC63A69D7 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 06:20:27 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081201142028.18BC63A69D7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 06:20:27 -0800 (PST)

From kristengdh@1klik.dk Mon Dec 1 14:23:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C49928C0FB for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:23:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.434 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, RELAY_IS_222=2.179, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4nTUYg9sG70E for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:23:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from 222-154-112-185.jetstream.xtra.co.nz (222-154-112-185.jetstream.xtra.co.nz [222.154.112.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E31C3A69EE for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:23:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081201222352.9E31C3A69EE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:23:51 -0800 (PST)

From oarangod@alumina.com.co Mon Dec 1 23:04:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89973A6ABC for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:04:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5WX4ZIf4ulKX for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-1-97-217.dsl.telesp.net.br (201-1-97-217.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.1.97.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C31163A680F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:04:12 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: like those greek statue has From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081202070416.C31163A680F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:04:12 -0800 (PST)

Having trouble viewing this email?
Click here to view as a webpage.

From llbill@alston.com Tue Dec 2 17:33:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12813A682A for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:33:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -19.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZS79QGOt6N7h for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from aik.tec.sc.us (unknown [96.241.15.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 10DAA3A6A1E for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:33:15 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081203013316.10DAA3A6A1E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:33:15 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 11:10:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D65B3A6958 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:10:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TCJ-Nx1b045O for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:10:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC1B3A69EC for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:10:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L7x03-000NMU-Pq for v6ops-data@psg.com; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:03:03 +0000 Received: from [76.96.62.32] (helo=QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L7wzy-000NM7-Km for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:03:00 +0000 Received: from OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id mi6u1a00F0vyq2s53j1YN8; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:01:32 +0000 Received: from [10.2.0.63] ([69.33.111.74]) by OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id mj2W1a00Y1cMU3H3Rj2Yd0; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:02:54 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=tlkHy73vH0IxYQvppRYA:9 a=HF4cbGfBK0LOhQ0BrMkA:7 a=YUka7APVPqQBHmYG16fJdsfyizgA:4 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=3SmO1NJXDBsA:10 Message-Id: <7625000C-DF32-4CF8-AF01-CA7E6B033317@lilacglade.org> From: Margaret Wasserman To: IETF Discussion , Internet Area , IPv6 Operations , "behave@ietf.org WG" , apps-discuss@ietf.org, Routing Research Group Mailing List , IESG IESG , IAB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: New NAT66 Discussion List Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:02:29 -0500 Cc: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Everyone, I am sending this message to several large groups of people with considerable overlap in an effort to reach everyone who has been participating (actively or passively) in the NAT66 discussions. PLEASE, PLEASE do not reply to this full list. Send any replies to the new nat66 discussion list (cc:ed) or to me privately. In response to concerns that have been raised about discussing IPv6-to- IPv6 NAT on the behave WG mailing list, we have started a new mailing list for the ongoing NAT66 discussion, nat66@ietf.org. The purpose of this list is to discuss the needs that may drive the adoption of IPv6- to-IPv6 NAT, and to discuss solutions to meet those needs, possibly including specification of an IPv6 NAT mechanism, that will work better and be less harmful to the Internet than direct ports of IPv4 NA(P)T functionality. Although we will see how the conversation evolves in the upcoming weeks, our current expectation is that we will hold a BOF at IETF 74 in San Francisco to discuss this topic and to determine if there is consensus that the IETF should pursue any work in this area. It is not our intention that this new list will be used for discuss of IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, even those that involve translation. Discussion of the v4v6translation work will remain in the behave WG, where it is a chartered work item. If you would like to join the nat66 mailing list list or read the list archives, you can do so via the following URL: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 If you would like to actively contribute to the discussion, I would suggest that you start by reading the following documents: - RFC 4864: Local Network Protection for IPv6 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864 - Renumbering still needs work http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt - IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) -- now somewhat out- of-date http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864 - IETF 73 behave WG Presentation on NAT66 -- more up-to-date http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/behave-14.pdf Then, come join the discussion on the nat66@ietf.org mailing list. Margaret From karolien@adbibendum.be Wed Dec 3 21:21:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5DE3A6818 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:21:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -35.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-35.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, SARE_RECV_BEZEQINT_B=0.763, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cuU+3nRn13pg for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from adamsmartinassociates.com (bzq-82-81-20-250.red.bezeqint.net [82.81.20.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D8EC728C0F2 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:21:08 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081204052109.D8EC728C0F2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:21:08 -0800 (PST)

From misachideki@agcmt.com.tw Thu Dec 4 03:22:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2133A68C4 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:22:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.051 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GnjkTfoFbSlF for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:22:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from 88-149-176-168.static.ngi.it (88-149-176-168.static.ngi.it [88.149.176.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A3253A689C for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:22:32 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081204112233.7A3253A689C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:22:32 -0800 (PST)

From jolly0811vaey@af7.mopera.ne.jp Thu Dec 4 18:52:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62B43A68D0 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:52:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.829 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_BIZ=0.288, HELO_MISMATCH_BIZ=0.443, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3Ljzq3REqha for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:52:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from altwell.biz (unknown [92.15.42.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F82F3A635F for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:52:25 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081205025226.0F82F3A635F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:52:25 -0800 (PST)

From liq@ad-sim.com Thu Dec 4 22:52:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ECA3A6935 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:52:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5v5F5-SCLzWb for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:52:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from host81-148-79-163.in-addr.btopenworld.com (host81-148-79-163.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.148.79.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0227F3A69D2 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:52:26 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081205065227.0227F3A69D2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:52:26 -0800 (PST)

From mikes@20cf.com Thu Dec 4 23:53:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B093A6C10 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:53:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rMdmpKiobSrd for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyn216-8-145-230.ADSL.mnsi.net (dyn216-8-145-230.ADSL.mnsi.net [216.8.145.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D93313A6C0C for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:53:11 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081205075311.D93313A6C0C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:53:11 -0800 (PST)

From kristien.spruyt@accent.be Fri Dec 5 09:40:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6B428C1C2 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:40:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.734 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_DIALIN=3.384, HELO_EQ_DIP_DIALIN=1.573, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NNIut78iAh3o for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from p4FDB67F4.dip.t-dialin.net (p4FDB78C8.dip.t-dialin.net [79.219.120.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A6CD63A69F1 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081205174009.A6CD63A69F1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:40:09 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 10:02:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDBF28C1B6 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:02:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STGcyHvqj8r9 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D7B28C1CB for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:02:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L8enp-0009wq-Mc for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:49:21 +0000 Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L8enY-0009uj-4z for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:49:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E1484DAA; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:57 +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 e0rJFZrDeOl8; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id CD90C84DA9; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB94D84AF9; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:53 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-1023599822-1228499333=:88271" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-1023599822-1228499333=:88271 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Dear All, See my comments below: As a general comment, in my opinion there is lot of overlap with existing standards: e.g. section 8.8 QoS section 7 IPv6 Data Forwarding I think the operational model can be further simplified with ND proxy operations (RFC ????) with pure SLAAC. In the ND proxy operation the IPv6 allocation and operation much more simplified: [PE device] | /-------+---------\ | Broadband | | network | \--------+--------/ | WAN [CPE device] | | | | LAN WLAN In this model PE device is issuing RA, and CPE router is receiving on WAN interface and proxy towards LAN and WLAN interfaces. Advantages: - No need to operate DHCP relay/client/server on CPE router - No need to operate DHCP server/relay on PE device - Disadvantages: - Only one /64 could be allocated to end users - no multiple subnet possible - The users LAN/WLAN interface "Virtually connected" to PE devices - PE device should be protected as it would be directly to PE interface e.g. MAC table - CPE router might not be capable of filtering at packet level - ND proxy is very similar to bridging Further comments about the text: Section 2: WLAN interface - Do we have to consider ad-hoc nodes - if one uses access points then it is not an ad-hoc wireless network Section 3: IPv6 multicast - In my opinion this term is ambiguous - It would be more appropriate to call it "IPv6 multicast behaviour". Section 3.1: The numbered element 6 has to be similar to previous 5. e.g: enable transition if DHCPv6 fails I would also add ND proxy enable. Section 5.3.2: I don't see the strong host model to be defined anywhere in the document Section 5.6.1: The after "IPV6CP negotiates...." until the end of the section is clearly leftover from the previous section. - Should be removed. Section 5.7: "If the CPE Router needs to support a stateful DHCPv6 server, then more details will be added to this section specifying the minimal functionality that the stateful DHCPv6 server needs to support. " should be rephrased: e.g.: Stateful DHCPv6 server support in CPE router is out of scope in this document. Section 7: The data forwarding might be extended in case of ND proxy - since WAN and LAN/WLAN treated as single SLAAC domain. "The routing table is filled by directly connected, static, and routing protocol routes. " should be something similar to: "The routing table is filled by directly connected, static, DHCP delegated prefixes and routing protocol routes. " " Proxy Neighbor Advertisements as described in Section 7.2.8 of [RFC4861] are not applicable to the CPE Router. " I disagree in case of ND Proxy is an accepted operation. "As per [RFC2460], the CPE Router decrements the Hop Limit by 1 for any packet it forwards. " This sentence has to be removed - standard behaviour - no need further clarification. The section should refer to RFC 4980 - ICMPv6 filtering recommmendations - or should be refered in draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-03 Section 7.2: I would add: "CPE may implement full MLD multicast processing." Section 8.1: "Routers which may encounter a packet too large to be forwarded from source to destination may drop the packet and send an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message to the source." I would write the following " Routers which may encounter a packet too large to be forwarded from source to destination may drop the packet and should generate an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message towards the source." Section 8.3.1: I think stateful or stateless packet filtering is implies some default behaviour: - stateless packet filtering useful only if the default behaviour is allow all - selectively disable unwanted traffic - if the default behaviour is deny all incoming packet then stateful filtering is a must - outgoing packet should open the firewall to the answers - or maintaining firewall will be a nightmare Section 8.5: "... the 6to4 tunneling protocol [RFC3056] MAY be enabled automatically..." In may opinion the following option should be presented to the end user: - No Ipv6 - IPv6 (trying getting IPv6 on WAN interface then fall back to 6to4) - NDproxy I would put the 2nd paragraph into a subsection 8.5.1: "Generating IPv6 address on WAN interfaces" Section 8.7: >From the text "The CPE Router may also include DNS64..." Either put into a different subsection or into a separate draft. Section 8.8: not necessary - does not give anything to the draft Section 9: Make it more precise: "... WAN address assigned through DHCPv4 or manually configured ..." Should be changed to: "... WAN address assigned through DHCPv4, through PPP or manually configured..." " A stateful firewall can enhance security by examining the state of each connection and only allow traffic which conforms to an expected packet flow." I don't see why is this necessary here.... 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, 30 Oct 2008, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt > > Thanks. > > Hemant & Wes > > --0-1023599822-1228499333=:88271-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 12:59:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3183A688D for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:59:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.942, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwzMdrXP27l9 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D163A6403 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L8hiJ-000O8c-Cc for v6ops-data@psg.com; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:55:51 +0000 Received: from [130.76.32.69] (helo=blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L8hiD-000O8E-L0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:55:48 +0000 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id mB5KtGTt003135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:55:16 -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 mB5KtGD6004478; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:55:16 -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 mB5KtGo6004453; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:55:16 -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(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:55:15 -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: WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-01.txt (was: Re: Rogue RA WGLC) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:55:12 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1054B61B3@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <200811262024.mAQKOAq1007899@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-01.txt (was: Re: Rogue RA WGLC) Thread-Index: AclQBqz+36GvM5rAQcyv+S62RvSljAHFAMiw References: <200811262024.mAQKOAq1007899@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Thomas Narten" , "Fred Baker" Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2008 20:55:15.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6102490:01C9571B] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: My only concern with this document is that, if the RA-Guards become too aggressive, they can block legitimate RAs that should get through and thereby mount an untraceable denial of service attack. How can we be sure, for example, that the potentially diverse RA guard implementations within the same L2 infrastructure would implement the same policies and mechanisms such that uniform behavior is observed? It seems to me that the L2 devices are welcome to perform whatever filtering they like regardless of any documents that might come from the IETF. Therefore, I'd like to see more pros/cons on this. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:24 PM >To: Fred Baker >Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; kurtis@kurtis.pp.se; rbonica@juniper.net >Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-01.txt (was: Re: Rogue RA WGLC) > >Fred Baker writes: > >> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-chown- >> v6ops-rogue-ra-02.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-01.txt. > >What is the intended status of the ra-guard document? Informational? >(I would assume it is not going on standards track, since the proposed >behavior only loosely specified.) > >At this point, I lean against publishing this document at all (in >fairness, I also opposed taking it on as WG document at all.) > >My overall issue with it is that it offers little utility (IMO) beyond >that provided by simple L2 filtering. E.g., just dropping all RAs from >ports other than those that are authorized to send RAs. I would assume >existing switches support this sort of thing, and I can't think of an >example right off where an IETF document was published to encourage >such behavior. I.e., vendors are generally smart enough to provide >such facilities already, and don't need an IETF document to do so. If, >the IETF were to publish a document, I think it would be more useful >for it to clearly describe what sorts of port blocking filters should >be provided (and why), so vendors would understand the benefits of >doing so. But again, IMO, just simple filtering is sufficient, and >having an RA Guard entity that looks at RAs, compares them against >detailed configuration information for validity (which, btw, is yet >more one place where misconfiguration can mess things up), doesn't >have sufficient benefits to recommend. > >On details of the "stateful learning", the LEARNING state seems to me >to be rather simplistic and would be ineffective after, say, a power >failure. Given it's overall lack of robustness, I have doubts it is >worth recommending this. > >Thomas From joyzhuangq@aiptek.com.cn Fri Dec 5 15:51:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDDD3A6403 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:51:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -29.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-29.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sz6IDvMionVo for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from amscowindows.com (unknown [89.205.27.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 686DB3A6A2C for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:51:02 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081205235103.686DB3A6A2C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:51:02 -0800 (PST)

From mmachuca@accredhome.com Fri Dec 5 17:17:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737413A6876 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:17:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, HELO_EQ_RO=1.235, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ADS1-fuVxO8Q for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:17:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from afs.org (unknown [201.124.22.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C5173A67DB for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:17:25 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081206011725.7C5173A67DB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:17:25 -0800 (PST)

From kefxwuxp@amhaire.com Sat Dec 6 03:58:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6380F3A69B2 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:58:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.361 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zcAA5LCb0rlO for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:58:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from aeat.es (unknown [122.166.146.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 32EC33A684E for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:58:07 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081206115809.32EC33A684E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:58:07 -0800 (PST)

From carlson@sunset.com Sat Dec 6 05:07:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06893A67F1; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:07:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.83 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jnNhzaGzf1xX; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:07:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc-48-39-120-200.cm.vtr.net (pc-48-39-120-200.cm.vtr.net [200.120.39.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DB79D3A697F; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:07:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:07:04 -0500 From: "Marcelino Walden" Subject: Breitling better than original To: tools-team-request@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Marcelino Looking for a Omega watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.nuxancub.com/ Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of December. http://www.nuxancub.com/ Sincerely, Mr Walden From on@120babes.com Sat Dec 6 07:30:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA9A3A69AA for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:30:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -32.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-32.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9KO-Z-ZzutAo for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from 4stepusa.com (unknown [216.230.152.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 27EA43A67B4 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:30:46 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081206153048.27EA43A67B4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:30:46 -0800 (PST)

From activities@vec.bc.ca Sat Dec 6 09:56:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F19A3A683B; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZJ9cy2VPAfV; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from 101-106-21-190.adsl.terra.cl (101-106-21-190.adsl.terra.cl [190.21.106.101]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 76E823A67AC; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:56:42 -0500 From: "Jay Swartz" Subject: Vacheron Constantin better than original To: smime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Jay If you've waited to get your Jaeger LeCoultre watch, this is the right time to go for it. http://www.pawovyaj.com/ With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.pawovyaj.com/ Sincerely, Mr Swartz From lhhki@aeoink.com Sat Dec 6 22:41:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FB03A6901 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:41:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.659 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-VA6VzLUhZv for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from 82-170-50-170.ip.telfort.nl (82-170-50-170.ip.telfort.nl [82.170.50.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B1993A6866 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:41:40 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081207064142.3B1993A6866@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:41:40 -0800 (PST)

From i.santos@aroreformas.com Sun Dec 7 00:36:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A863A6947; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:36:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.892 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhOqqviqf2Z4; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from 20158113095.user.veloxzone.com.br (20158113095.user.veloxzone.com.br [201.58.113.95]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A7D03A691A; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:35:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:35:40 -0500 From: "Leona Bernard" Subject: Christmas Tag Heuer watches bargain To: tools-team-request@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Leona Looking for a Tag Heuer? How about getting two, one for you and one for your spouse? http://www.niyubkab.com/ Take advantage of our christmas specials and get yourself Tag Heuer watch that you've always wanted! http://www.niyubkab.com/ Sincerely, Mr Bernard From fields@cityfieldsfoundation.org Sun Dec 7 07:49:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B233A699D; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:49:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z7q425NR04-X; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:49:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from CPE-124-190-235-248.vic.bigpond.net.au (CPE-124-190-235-248.vic.bigpond.net.au [124.190.235.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 53D243A6992; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:49:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:48:54 -0500 From: "Pasquale Ellis" Subject: Take a look at the Breitling watches To: smime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Pasquale Christmas is the time to get Patek Phillipe watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.pelabbiy.com/ Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.pelabbiy.com/ Sincerely, Mr Ellis From jorge93@aandco.com Sun Dec 7 11:22:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007793A68F0 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJ59-mN6VtRA for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from alcoa.com.au (unknown [12.23.249.114]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CFC03A677C for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:01 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081207192201.7CFC03A677C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:01 -0800 (PST)

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here!

From judithr@aliroo.com Sun Dec 7 22:44:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A653A6A3A for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:44:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.346 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ikv3B2MHTBb for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from aitlbd.net (unknown [88.238.112.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 723123A6A34 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:44:50 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081208064451.723123A6A34@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:44:50 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 23:50:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066573A68F0 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:50:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.774 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.337, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VxdvWJ+Fqgmq for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:50:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EBF3A693F for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9an6-000Ei3-Vh for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:44:28 +0000 Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9amu-000EhA-Qg for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:44:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 39479 invoked by uid 1007); 8 Dec 2008 07:44:11 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=FefW812lWwxy/6YkhtM0qzoasMtQeYb8YSwlhfDPBwgVjaZu/HR17LYI0GmB9F6W ; Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:44:11 +0100 From: Gert Doering To: Mohacsi Janos Cc: "Hemant Singh $shemant$" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Message-ID: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NCC-RegID: de.space Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote: > Disadvantages: > - Only one /64 could be allocated to end users - no multiple subnet possible I think this is a serious-enough disadvantage that we would not want to use ND proxy. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 Mon Dec 8 02:01:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579263A6A80 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:01:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OHf+XDCRy24n for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:01:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A689F3A6A7B for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9crw-000PCY-CJ for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:57:36 +0000 Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9crq-000PC4-Sz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:57:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBD284E36; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:57:28 +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 CHltvI9rbisJ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:57:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id BB95984E13; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:57:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA04084DA9; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:57:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:57:25 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Gert Doering cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review In-Reply-To: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> Message-ID: References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> Disadvantages: >> - Only one /64 could be allocated to end users - no multiple subnet possible > > I think this is a serious-enough disadvantage that we would not want to > use ND proxy. I think NDproxy is one option - option for clueless users how just connect their devices directly on the CPE wired/or wireless and not configuring any VLANs or subnets. I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this category. More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) could be offered to the rest of the users... I think ND proxy could be used for mass IPv6 broadband deployment: - no configuration required from end users on their router box if NDproxy is supported and switched on by default. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 02:51:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AD63A6803 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:51:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.497, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54Mrk3oSvCRI for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:51:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C78628C0EE for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:51:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9dfG-00033l-Sr for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:48:34 +0000 Received: from [62.23.212.27] (helo=smail5.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9dfA-00033I-5w for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:48:32 +0000 Received: from FRVELSBHS05.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.77]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id mB8AmLtj006766; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:48:21 +0100 Received: from FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.52]) by FRVELSBHS05.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:48:21 +0100 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: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:48:19 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Thread-Index: AclZH3FMdOy8p/jHQXqnE/erpqeZVQAAqK9w References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> From: "HENDERICKX Wim" To: "Mohacsi Janos" , "Gert Doering" Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2008 10:48:21.0525 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CDAE450:01C95922] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.13 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Janos, Using SLAAC/ND proxy on the uplink can give some security implication for sure when N:1 broadband architectures are used, so I think it is better to use DHCP/DHCP PD to overcome these. service providers are used to DHCP in broadband environments. My 2 cents. Cheers, Wim -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mohacsi Janos Sent: maandag 8 december 2008 10:57 To: Gert Doering Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> Disadvantages: >> - Only one /64 could be allocated to end users - no multiple subnet=20 >> possible > > I think this is a serious-enough disadvantage that we would not want=20 > to use ND proxy. I think NDproxy is one option - option for clueless users how just connect their devices directly on the CPE wired/or wireless and not configuring any VLANs or subnets. I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this category. More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) could be offered to the rest of the users... I think ND proxy could be used for mass IPv6 broadband deployment: - no configuration required from end users on their router box if NDproxy is supported and switched on by default. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 03:10:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5A03A6A83 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:10:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5rcG35MDV1bR for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD6D3A68E8 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9dxb-0004VN-VJ for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:07:31 +0000 Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9dxU-0004Uk-AH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:07:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7421384B2D; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:07:22 +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 XINohB2f4yO7; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:07:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 8E6CE84E39; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:07:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A19184E1A; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:07:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:07:19 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: HENDERICKX Wim cc: Gert Doering , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , IPv6 Operations Subject: RE: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, HENDERICKX Wim wrote: > Janos, > > Using SLAAC/ND proxy on the uplink can give some security implication > for sure when N:1 broadband architectures are used, so I think it is > better to use DHCP/DHCP PD to overcome these. service providers are used > to DHCP in broadband environments. Yes I know. This can be a problem for cable operators. Therefore I propose this one only as an option. In my view NDproxy can be applied in: Broadband DSL Networks - PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model - L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model Broadband Ethernet Networks - PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model - L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model and probably: Wireless LAN - PPP-Based Model with RFC 4779 terminology. Regards, Janos Mohacsi From mgtqoekk@alkar.net Mon Dec 8 04:08:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DA33A6A96 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:08:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -29.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-29.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hLL-ibWLetWh for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:08:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from aiolos.com (unknown [189.72.225.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BD8583A6A94 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:08:28 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Order status From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081208120829.BD8583A6A94@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:08:28 -0800 (PST)

From officej@alpquell.com Mon Dec 8 10:00:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5AB28C115 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:00:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.466 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a2n-+ulBoAx5 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from 254.Red-80-34-247.staticIP.rima-tde.net (254.Red-80-34-247.staticIP.rima-tde.net [80.34.247.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 922F728C105 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:00:07 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081208180007.922F728C105@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:00:07 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 14:31:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CDC3A6ABA for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:31:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.948, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gro8VXK4zWLc for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:31:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8733A6AB7 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:31:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9oYl-000AK3-Oi for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:26:35 +0000 Received: from [209.85.198.224] (helo=rv-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9oYf-000AJZ-Sq for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:26:32 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1325731rvf.41 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:26:28 -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=W5NMoz6Qzqo+1B+11PSx/cE4bQHaVfSXzyzPmkYQE4E=; b=p67h1AysvfMVa6UF+CZyKeh+xfbOarPE8rA2B9I6LmLoFuulily/Hd+8jjR9XNLXTc Gr+Hktd4bTuavk/BmaJPbBPKhpWR4r/sCoBfnrkxXtQ4l1srINvLkzxDPz0L0nVV0Bio pmSZ1beuTKL2ZTTr9qTdoVBG/J/IujJYauDnU= 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=CgJZwu/edBLHfx90HiDI12wEs4jKPOz9105TW9Ler4s6UD8fOxWPmg88G0qZtCU76a 2UQUpDibrYvLRgicA9JX54OVSbHt9gYinByPGY8xaxw3lZHl9dL9gliqjk7rk7HJqACd T4/uo0VnGvmGUcM54a5LBh6LTDxFyo/44gnrA= Received: by 10.140.157.1 with SMTP id f1mr1876903rve.196.1228775188890; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l31sm27528630rvb.2.2008.12.08.14.26.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <493D9F10.5080703@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:26:24 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mohacsi Janos CC: Gert Doering , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2008-12-08 22:57, Mohacsi Janos wrote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >>> Disadvantages: >>> - Only one /64 could be allocated to end users - no multiple subnet >>> possible >> >> I think this is a serious-enough disadvantage that we would not want to >> use ND proxy. > > I think NDproxy is one option - option for clueless users how just > connect their devices directly on the CPE wired/or wireless and not > configuring any VLANs or subnets. > > I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this category. > More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) could be > offered to the rest of the users... > > I think ND proxy could be used for mass IPv6 broadband deployment: > - no configuration required from end users on their router box if > NDproxy is supported and switched on by default. The trouble with this argument is: what happens twenty years from now, when multiple subnets in the home or small office become common, but the industry-standard $50 CPE uses this model and cannot be configured to deliver a shorter prefix than /64? That would be just like the problem we have today where all CPEs are legacy devices as far as IPv6 is concerned. Brian From new@57m.net Mon Dec 8 14:59:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEA83A6ABC for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:59:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -23.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-23.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.124, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08=1.787, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jVKHdiSSbvSJ for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppp079166019165.dsl.hol.gr (ppp079166019165.dsl.hol.gr [79.166.19.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E93573A6AC2 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:59:49 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081208225949.E93573A6AC2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:59:49 -0800 (PST)

Little time left till the end of our offer!

in Iraqi waters, but then the second set of coordinates,Kentucky, according to the United States Coast Guard.
Pole is launched in Paris, France.Sydney Harbour Bridge Ferry Disaster. A Sydney From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 16:10:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45593A67B5 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:10:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.931, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VwRip-GVasju for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C9B3A6ABB for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9q3A-000Gm4-N3 for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:02:04 +0000 Received: from [209.85.198.232] (helo=rv-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1L9q34-000GjZ-Ui for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:02:01 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1357149rvf.41 for ; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:01:56 -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=U0VtenD/szzpRy0agkIbBJsYrDZvm/JWzYWnDaVKGvk=; b=IyJolJq2ePcHz9/ECtkxoYT+ggTiUFsVDmxto500n0Su5cCcHORtTkVQBKw6Ssw4hN GiLgZ2rQ+U7S5cdHO4HbCrlzkUrP50ctyV9W2jUHIx5fVrRuj9299GqcJKrXXx37j/W+ Nh1lRW6Ep2NUG72UsB9fv5XcmKtxE7nAqyiuY= 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=V9mIOtG1qT4VuuHPAQ/sbps9O5ud5l7JTAAfKYglNF9h3e/VxkhUlQfC2DGzxYxzUi kVd3ifFdhlOZOUJU+aUlYribG4Nw6n911MmDRjrJkkelcJJu+tMmA1STShWx0ciF5ik6 f4sIDopFUjOeR5IcP4yv7qUBMz0AD8Tl7NSkg= Received: by 10.140.200.14 with SMTP id x14mr1916202rvf.191.1228780916816; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:01:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b8sm27646113rvf.3.2008.12.08.16.01.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:01:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <493DB576.7080702@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:01:58 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Curran CC: Mohacsi Janos , Gert Doering , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> <493D9F10.5080703@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2008-12-09 12:18, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 8, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> The trouble with this argument is: what happens twenty years from >> now, when multiple subnets in the home or small office become common, >> but the industry-standard $50 CPE uses this model and cannot be >> configured to deliver a shorter prefix than /64? > > Brian - > > By "when the industry-standard $50 CPE uses this model and cannot be > configured to deliver a shorter prefix" do you mean: > > 1) is shipped only with NDproxy and without DHCPv6 support, and is > forever broken > > or simply > > 2) has NDproxy turned on by default, and therefore assumes just one > /64 in use (until/unless the user switches it to DHCPv6) Either would be a problem, but 1) would of course be a worse problem IMNSHO. However, even getting Joe User to change a default setting as in 2) would seem likely to generate a lot of help desk traffic related to obsolete products. Brian From j.dollberg@alsterfemo.de Mon Dec 8 18:56:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3B83A682D for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:56:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MMKoGVc1B0FB for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:56:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from 251.44.124.24.cm.sunflower.com (251.44.124.24.cm.sunflower.com [24.124.44.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DDBE3A6807 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:56:16 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081209025617.4DDBE3A6807@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:56:16 -0800 (PST)

From jknight@airdusco.com Tue Dec 9 01:30:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61B83A6B04 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:30:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -41.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-41.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3+q5sYvo1t4f for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from host169-166-static.44-85-b.business.telecomitalia.it (host169-166-static.44-85-b.business.telecomitalia.it [85.44.166.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 71E753A695E for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:30:06 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081209093007.71E753A695E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:30:06 -0800 (PST)

From jmtorresi@aguakan.com Tue Dec 9 08:43:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3A93A6823 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:43:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcjES48vdE2T for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:43:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-068-213-228-115.sip.mia.bellsouth.net (adsl-068-213-228-115.sip.mia.bellsouth.net [68.213.228.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CF1213A67FC for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:43:45 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081209164346.CF1213A67FC@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:43:45 -0800 (PST)

From mbuell@accmail.com Tue Dec 9 09:11:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353F53A694F for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:11:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.883 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.883 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mrb6RE2S1VT8 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:11:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from 89-138-89-146.bb.netvision.net.il (89-138-89-146.bb.netvision.net.il [89.138.89.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE8753A6928 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:11:06 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081209171107.DE8753A6928@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:11:06 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 09:53:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EA23A6810 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:53:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDheJMmRYiER for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:53:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1CA3A6ABD for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:53:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LA6gU-000BUc-MS for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:47:46 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LA6gQ-000BU3-2W for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:47:44 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E83849F18FE for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:47:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 75DE328096 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:47:41 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a9827bb000000ff0-35-493eaf3d0fe6 Received: from il0602b-dhcp84.apple.com (il0602b-dhcp84.apple.com [17.206.24.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 50F0C28092 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:47:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations 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 v929.2) Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:47:40 -0800 References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Dec 8, 2008, at 01:57, Mohacsi Janos wrote: > > I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this > category. More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) > could be offered to the rest of the users... I disagree. I foresee a time in the very near future when most residential users will need at least two subnets, one for their own use and one for the use of their guests with mobile devices. I do not believe residential subscribers will accept systems that require giving their temporary guests full access to their private home networks even on a temporary basis. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From lertplakorn@3bd.com Tue Dec 9 12:28:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9F73A6B5D for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:28:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIqN+qd3FdNH for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from afjrotc.net (unknown [201.18.142.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B5B2D28C192 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:28:54 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: RE: Message From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080826-0, 26/08/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Message-Id: <20081209202854.B5B2D28C192@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:28:54 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 12:30:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C8E28C182 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:30:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNSxbt52VmhU for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9FA3A6B5B for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LA9AF-000LUf-HL for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:26:39 +0000 Received: from [130.215.36.91] (helo=mail1.wpi.edu) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LA9A8-000LUB-8o for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:26:35 +0000 Received: from SMTP.WPI.EDU (SMTP.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.186]) by mail1.wpi.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB9KQV1r009840 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:31 -0500 Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (ANGUS.IND.WPI.EDU [130.215.130.21]) by SMTP.WPI.EDU (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB9KQVGX022862 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:31 -0500 (envelope-from cra@WPI.EDU) Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (angus.ind.WPI.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mB9KQVYc002148 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:31 -0500 Received: (from cra@localhost) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id mB9KQUKp002146 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: angus.ind.WPI.EDU: cra set sender to cra@WPI.EDU using -f Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:30 -0500 From: Chuck Anderson To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Message-ID: <20081209202630.GD17843@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: IPv6 Operations References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:47:40AM -0800, james woodyatt wrote: > On Dec 8, 2008, at 01:57, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> >> I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this >> category. More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) >> could be offered to the rest of the users... > > > I disagree. I foresee a time in the very near future when most > residential users will need at least two subnets, one for their own use > and one for the use of their guests with mobile devices. I do not > believe residential subscribers will accept systems that require giving > their temporary guests full access to their private home networks even on > a temporary basis. You think residential subscribers even know the difference or what "full access" or "subnet" means? You have more faith in users than I do. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 13:49:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D0F3A6A5E for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:49:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.925, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zuDljQZSiPMf for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:49:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D233A697A for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:49:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LAAPP-000178-Hm for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:46:23 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LAAPK-00016I-41 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:46:20 +0000 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E0849F935E for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:46:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id AF14128095 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:46:17 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807130-a588bbb000000fcd-75-493ee729dda0 Received: from il0602b-dhcp84.apple.com (il0602b-dhcp84.apple.com [17.206.24.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 9080828087 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:46:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <20081209202630.GD17843@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:46:17 -0800 References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> <20081209202630.GD17843@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Dec 9, 2008, at 12:26, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:47:40AM -0800, james woodyatt wrote: >> On Dec 8, 2008, at 01:57, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >>> >>> I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this >>> category. More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) >>> could be offered to the rest of the users... >> >> >> I disagree. I foresee a time in the very near future when most >> residential users will need at least two subnets, one for their own >> use >> and one for the use of their guests with mobile devices. I do not >> believe residential subscribers will accept systems that require >> giving >> their temporary guests full access to their private home networks >> even on >> a temporary basis. > > You think residential subscribers even know the difference or what > "full access" or "subnet" means? You have more faith in users than > I do. No, I don't think they should have to know the technical details necessary to give them what they want, but I do think A) that's what they want, and B) the right way to give it to them is to have more than one subnet. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 13:53:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523D028C199 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:53:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.385 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.889, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBwhY0vpG1jg for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90B728C18A for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:53:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LAAVl-0001Si-Hj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:52:57 +0000 Received: from [131.107.115.214] (helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LAAVg-0001SL-Km for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:52:54 +0000 Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.53) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:52:52 -0800 Received: from tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.32) by TK5-EXHUB-C102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:52:01 -0800 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::75be:c82f:ae04:55bf]) by tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.32]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:52:31 -0800 From: Christian Huitema To: Chuck Anderson , IPv6 Operations Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:51:51 -0800 Subject: RE: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Thread-Topic: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review Thread-Index: AclaPYDk3KeQp0D1QISP/H9Gh9aVugACjw8A Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1940905054@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> <20081209202630.GD17843@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20081209202630.GD17843@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > > I disagree. I foresee a time in the very near future when most > > residential users will need at least two subnets, one for their own > use > > and one for the use of their guests with mobile devices. I do not > > believe residential subscribers will accept systems that require > giving > > their temporary guests full access to their private home networks even > on > > a temporary basis. > > You think residential subscribers even know the difference or what > "full access" or "subnet" means? You have more faith in users than I > do. There lies the rub. The subnet is not a very good match to the notion of ho= me network. For a user, the "home network" is "the machines in my home", wh= ich may or may not be actually connected to the same subnet. For example, m= y cell phone may or may not be connected to the wi-fi home network, yet I e= xpect it to get music files from my home server. Conversely, if I live in a= n apartment building, there may well be computers that are connected to the= same subnet, yet should not be allowed to mess with my home machines. Bottom line, we should stop relying to the wiring topology for security. -- Christian Huitema From 114nhenslee@icepr.com Tue Dec 9 18:24:21 2008 Return-Path: <114nhenslee@icepr.com> X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398D73A6B25; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:24:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.125 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mq6Y75FTIfhx; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:24:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-43-247-30.dsl.telesp.net.br (201-43-247-30.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.43.247.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 37A943A6B4B; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:24:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:23:58 -0500 From: "Ira Burris" Subject: Christmas Vacheron Constantin watches bargain To: tools-team-request@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Ira How about buying yourself a two Cartier watches the same day? It's not impossible, mostly when you can get them for a couple hundred bucks http://www.zihiksup.com/ With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.zihiksup.com/ Sincerely, Mr Burris From karen.smith@amaisd.org Wed Dec 10 02:03:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8573A68AB for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:03:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -37.384 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-37.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04=2.041, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, SARE_HTML_IMG_ONLY=1.666, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PQQLBndQDAJJ for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from abqk205.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (abqk205.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.8.78.205]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F29423A6A9E for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:03:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20081210100337.F29423A6A9E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:03:37 -0800 (PST)

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 06:23:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E07B3A6BAE for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:23:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CK8PNJVDqP6H for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:23:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84963A68EC for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:23:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LAPtl-000Dly-3m for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:18:45 +0000 Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LAPtg-000Dlb-4A for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:18:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC22384E43; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:18:34 +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 8U4GdR0N860G; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:18:28 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id C05CE84E5E; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:18:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA7884E5C; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:18:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:18:28 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: james woodyatt cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: new version of the CPE Rtr draft is ready for review In-Reply-To: <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> Message-ID: References: <20081208074411.GH44476@Space.Net> <8F1EEEF6-0364-4D59-8206-08B59C5807D2@apple.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, james woodyatt wrote: > On Dec 8, 2008, at 01:57, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> >> I think more than95% percent of the home users belongs to this category. >> More sophisticated methods (DHCPv6 with prefix delegation) could be offered >> to the rest of the users... > > > I disagree. I foresee a time in the very near future when most residential > users will need at least two subnets, one for their own use and one for the > use of their guests with mobile devices. I do not believe residential > subscribers will accept systems that require giving their temporary guests > full access to their private home networks even on a temporary basis. Then 90% users will buy a new home router.... The current devices are rarely support more than one subnet with the shipped firmware.... Regards, Janos Mohacsi From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 09:29:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF563A6B94 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:29:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.368 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.873, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKTzJrkHpqmL for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:29:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E8A3A69DB for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:29:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LASoh-0004cI-QT for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:25:43 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LASod-0004bw-5e for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:25:41 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89584804A43 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 8B3C328097 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:25:38 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807134-a6056bb000000ff0-84-493ffb91ce5a Received: from [17.151.108.77] (unknown [17.151.108.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id D3A2828092 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:25:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <17E5EDED-A67B-45C7-85CC-D854F3E31C0E@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: