From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8285E21F2D5 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:45:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id nt9so33571831obb.13 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:45:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tbJj1IJ6Bq8Vm0heRbDd47yQ19IF4snntOs1jll7f/I=; b=OK2LyOekUanZVPFmPiXRDgkcj0F9/2VIf7u6KRJnutlfPP95yvwKK8XFi7dCYfkREp BO0/O9hrgxFUwcNzJQt318EFn1icP4hiY/rmWIHiZlD38OJT2Qu+iikiIQ3cjh4itgwZ J9rGm1wjWOaeNn/mTOEZBWpwX8/xoegZrIEiZ+VODBCI3PON539C35ZbLZUZv5lwq2g0 xLSs2ByC9taN20EFXG+cEcMOWjcJk1NVRFBZ+OWjv98jFP9feT3IktMC0xajETme6n7i frt47NJPBG9F9WgL/y/GT+qipA9PhF++nrkNencIEnlOuzKycC62WS273gZKP0QiYgeh R/2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.111.131 with SMTP id v3mr19428555oik.133.1425329139141; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:45:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:45:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <874mq3w3gq.fsf@toke.dk> References: <54EE258E.8060302@gmail.com> <201502272200.t1RM0Aru020484@maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com> <7ia8zvjkdq.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <874mq3w3gq.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:45:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:46:08 -0000 On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Dave Taht writes: > >> Any objections here? > > Yes! I certainly wouldn't want to run that. Not a problem. You are fortunate enough to have stable ipv6 addresses where you are - and me, I have to go bat-s**t crazy everytime I get renumbered finding all the places that don't handle it properly and rebooting them. So if renumbering is not the PITA it is for me, for most of you, I merely want to make the ability to have some form of translation available for those that can't put up with it, and won't make it be the default. Also as aaron points out, better firewalling/dmz of ipv6 is on the agenda too. Not that I have either time, or money, or a lot of interest, in fixing anything but wifi in the next few months. >> Suggestions for how to make one of the ipv6 translation techniques >> work right? > > Turn them off? ;) > > -Toke --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb