On 12/03/2013 04:02, Michael Mol wrote:
We should be pounding away on the fact that we're running out of IP
addresses... period... end of story. If people ask about NAT, then
mention that the undersupply will be so bad that even NAT won't
help.
In my presentations, I've stopped
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:29:38 +0200
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
We should be pounding away on the fact that we're running out of
IP
addresses... period... end of story. If people ask about NAT,
then mention that the undersupply will be so bad that even NAT
won't
On 11/03/2013 06:00, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary
because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique
one.
The best real reason for moving to IPV6
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:22:39AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
You are being over-simplistic.
Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are
inextricably intertwined.
Agreed. But we shouldn't be pointing out that NAT has partially solved
the problem, and giving people
Don't waste time and effort on it. Put your
effort into pounding away on a simple issue that people do understand...
we're running out of IP addresses.
We have run out of unallocated ones, there are still loads of unused
ones and even more due to global NAT, and even some being released.
It
On 03/09/2013 07:53 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
There is no reason to believe that IPv6 will result in an
increased use of IPsec.
Bull. The biggest barrier to IPsec use has been NAT! If an
intermediate router has to rewrite the packet to change the
apparent source and/or destination
No, there was simply no useful result that came up. Incidentally, both
links you provide *did* come up...but I dismissed them because I
couldn't imagine anyone using them as a reference except in trying to
deride Henning Brauer.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=129666298029771w=2
NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary
because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique
one.
The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack
thereof, in the case of IPV4). The people who are truly interested
On 12/03/2013 00:45, Walter Dnes wrote:
NAT is the context of an IPv6 discussion is *very* relevant, it's
one of the points you have to raise to illustrate what bits inside
people's heads needs to be identified and changed.
Until you change the content of people's heads, IPv6 is just not
On 12/03/2013 01:31, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary
because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique
one.
The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack
thereof, in the case of IPV4).
On 03/11/2013 06:45 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:22:39AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
You are being over-simplistic.
Lack of IPv4 address space *caused* NAT to happen, the two are
inextricably intertwined.
Agreed. But we shouldn't be pointing out that NAT has
On 03/11/2013 06:34 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On 03/09/2013 07:53 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
There is no reason to believe that IPv6 will result in an
increased use of IPsec.
Bull. The biggest barrier to IPsec use has been NAT! If an
intermediate router has to rewrite the packet to change
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:39:35PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote
Don't waste time and effort on it. Put your
effort into pounding away on a simple issue that people do understand...
we're running out of IP addresses.
We have run out of unallocated ones, there are still loads of unused
On 03/11/2013 07:09 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
No, there was simply no useful result that came up. Incidentally,
both links you provide *did* come up...but I dismissed them
because I couldn't imagine anyone using them as a reference except
in trying to deride Henning Brauer.
On 03/10/2013 12:19 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 10/03/2013 03:42, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:41:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols.
The first was FTP in Active mode.
In its day, it was OK. Nowadays, we use
On 03/09/2013 07:53 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Lookup ipvshit
I'll give you a hint.
The guy who wrote most of the pf firewall that MAC OSX now uses as well
as QNX, the latest version originating from OpenBSD and being far better
than iptables has bought up lots of ipv4 just to stay away
On 10/03/2013 23:07, Michael Mol wrote:
All those examples you give are much like a bunch of home machines
sitting behind a NAT gateway onto the internet. That's actually OK
and I reckon that is the intended use of NAT.
I want to point out that that's only true if the home network has at
On 03/09/2013 07:53 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
There is no reason to believe that IPv6 will result in an
increased use of IPsec.
Bull. The biggest barrier to IPsec use has been NAT! If an
intermediate router has to rewrite the packet to change the
apparent source and/or destination
On 03/10/2013 05:43 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 10/03/2013 23:07, Michael Mol wrote:
All those examples you give are much like a bunch of home machines
sitting behind a NAT gateway onto the internet. That's actually OK
and I reckon that is the intended use of NAT.
I want to point out that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2013 06:00 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
It's been ages since I looked at that link and longer addresses
would certainly be needed anyway but certainly with DNSSEC again
concocted by costly unthoughtful and unengaging groups who chose
to
On 03/10/2013 09:56 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 03/10/2013 06:00 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
It's been ages since I looked at that link and longer addresses
would certainly be needed anyway but certainly with DNSSEC again
concocted by costly unthoughtful and unengaging groups who chose
to
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary
because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique
one.
The best real reason for moving to IPV6 is address space (or lack
thereof, in the
On 03/11/2013 12:00 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote
NAT behind a home router is bad, too. For IPv4, it's only necessary
because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to let everyone have a unique
one.
The best real reason for moving to
There is no reason to believe that IPv6 will result in an increased use
of IPsec.
Bull. The biggest barrier to IPsec use has been NAT! If an intermediate
router has to rewrite the packet to change the apparent source and/or
destination addresses, then the cryptographic signature will show
Lookup ipvshit
I'll give you a hint.
The guy who wrote most of the pf firewall that MAC OSX now uses as well
as QNX, the latest version originating from OpenBSD and being far better
than iptables has bought up lots of ipv4 just to stay away from ipvshit.
Tried searching
On 03/09/2013 08:42 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:41:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols. The
first was FTP in Active mode.
In its day, it was OK. Nowadays, we use passive mode. What's the
problem?
It
On 10/03/2013 03:42, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:41:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
The trouble with NAT is that it destroys peer-to-peer protocols. The
first was FTP in Active mode.
In its day, it was OK. Nowadays, we use passive mode. What's the
problem?
SIP has
1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space
2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away
and stay away. Permanently. Forever.
It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job
wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason for many of
On 03/08/2013 02:50 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space
2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away
and stay away. Permanently. Forever.
It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job
wouldn't have been so
1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space
2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away
and stay away. Permanently. Forever.
It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job
wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason
On Mar 9, 2013 4:51 AM, Kevin Chadwick ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space
2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go
away
and stay away. Permanently. Forever.
It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:49:23PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote
What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost
lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by
ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone
being happy to switch
What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost
lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by
ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone
being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address
space.
Unfortunately, your logic is flawed.
Where would you put the additional bits of address?
That would involve rewriting the IP Header.
Your assumption that I do not know that is flawed. I did a review of
ipv6 before it was released and determined ipv4 to be superior then.
That was before I
On 03/08/2013 07:45 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
What would have been best, could have been done years ago and
not cost lots of money and even more in security breaches and
what I meant by ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even
today with everyone being happy to switch to it is simply
On 03/08/2013 07:50 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Unfortunately, your logic is flawed.
Where would you put the additional bits of address?
That would involve rewriting the IP Header.
Your assumption that I do not know that is flawed. I did a review of
ipv6 before it was released and
36 matches
Mail list logo
