[125748] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Lightfoot)
Thu Apr 22 11:05:39 2010
From: "John Lightfoot" <jlightfoot@gmail.com>
To: <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>,
"'Simon Perreault'" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20100422143403.GB8526@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:04:54 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That's Hedley.
-----Original Message-----
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:34 AM
To: Simon Perreault
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 08:34:20AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
> >On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC picks
> >up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new outbound
> >connection for anonymity purposes.
>
> That's probably RFC 4941. It's available in pretty much all operating
> systems. I don't think there's any IPR issue to be afraid of.
not RFC4941... think abt applying Heddy Lamars
patents on spread-spectrum to source address selection.
--bill
