On 13-Sep-2005, at 03:28, Crist Clark wrote:
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
[snip]
Moving everything to the end-hosts is simply not a good idea imho.
But isn't that what IP is supposed to be about? Smart endpoints, dumb
network (a.k.a. the stupid network)?
And with many peer-to-peer
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content providers are going to do anything serious in
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:45:31 +0300, Joe Abley said:
And with many peer-to-peer applications, isn't the traffic
engineering already effectively performed at the edge?
already performed ineffectively at the edge is probably a better
description of the true state of affairs. Remember that
--- Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The shimming model is a way to solve this by the
endsystems knowing
about multihoming, instead of the network. I
personally think this is a
better idea and scales much better. Let's have the
network moving packets
as its primary goal,
At 10:17 AM 9/10/2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 10-Sep-2005, at 09:18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
multi6 hasn't existed for some time. The level-3 shim approach to
multi-homing that was the primary output of multi6 is being discussed
in shim6.
On 13-sep-2005, at 0:22, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: I must be missing something, but there's a good chance that the
requester is
:: going to have to wait for a timeout on their SYN packets before
failing over
:: to another address to try. Or is the requester supposed to
send SYNs to all
At 03:19 PM 9/13/2005, you wrote:
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. (That
goes for John Payne and Daniel Senie too.)
I was there in the beginning for Multi6. When I saw the direction(s)
that were being
On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-sep-2005, at 0:22, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: I must be missing something, but there's a good chance that the
requester is
:: going to have to wait for a timeout on their SYN packets before
failing over
:: to another address to
Waitaminute - isn't the whole *purpose* of layer 3
that the network makes these routing decisions?
If there are N routers in an ISP, I would expect the
ISP to connect to X endsystems, where 10N X 1000N.
How does knowing about X endsystems scale better than
knowing about N
On 13-sep-2005, at 21:58, Daniel Senie wrote:
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. (That
goes for John Payne and Daniel Senie too.)
I was there in the beginning for Multi6. When I saw the direction
(s)
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 13-sep-2005, at 0:22, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
(firmly in the shim6 does not adress *most* of the issues camp)
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
The rules today have not resulted in and overly huge number of
multihomers.
I suspect that is a matter of perspective. Even if 10% of all sites are
multihomed, and we continue in the IPv4 multihoming model, then we will
end up with slow exponential growth of the routing table which
on Sat Sep 10 03:39:59 2005 Christopher L. Morrow writes
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :)
The most basic question is if there will be a problem if we solve the
On 11-sep-2005, at 20:59, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
Could be 4.1 or even 4.2.
And therein lies the problem.
I'm assuming those working on 4byte ASs know, if it's more we'll have
to migrate again which would be silly so soon
I don't think
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the
IPv6 arena.
Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
don't know if
:: Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
:: don't know if this makes a difference.
::
:: I have a very strong feeling that part of the lack of content providers on
:: IPv6 is due to the lack of multihoming.
::
:: Whilst this thread is open... perhaps someone
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
Could be 4.1 or even 4.2.
And therein lies the problem.
My point, we don't know so some arbitrary or technology limits will
have to do as there isn't financial reason to make something
bigger
in any event, 32-bit AS
numbers allow for 4
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the
IPv6 arena.
Whilst this thread is open... perhaps someone can explain to me how
shim6 is as good as multihoming in the case of redundancy when one of
the links is down at the time of the initial request, so before any
shim-layer negotiation happens.
I must be missing something, but there's a good
Or, on top of that, how traffic engineering can be performed with shim6..
-igor
(firmly in the shim6 does not adress *most* of the issues camp)
Shim6 doesn't do what most end user sites would like to think of as
traffic engineering.
For a multihomed site, traffic engineering is about
:: All in all, site traffic engineering is NOT going to be an easy problem
:: to solve in a hop-by-hop forwarding paradigm based on clever
:: manipulation of L3 locators. Architecturally, what one would really
:: like is to not worry about the traffic engineering problem per-se.
:: Rather, what
Igor Gashinsky wrote:
[snip]
Moving everything to the end-hosts is simply not a good idea imho.
But isn't that what IP is supposed to be about? Smart endpoints, dumb
network (a.k.a. the stupid network)?
--
Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Globalstar
On Sep 12, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Tony Li wrote:
Rather, what is needed is a mechanism that allows congestion control
and
mechanisms to feed into the address selection algorithms, so that when
a
link does become saturated, some traffic (but not all! ;-), shifts to
alternate addresses.
Not
:: We also like that fact that we can change our
:: announcements so others can only use prefix X through transit provider Y
:: and not transit provider Z, unless transit provider Y goes away (those 2
:: are obviously not the only uses of such policies, but are just examples).
::
::
::
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Content providers and other large business, without who's funds the Internet
would fail, have a right not to be tied to a single provider. And while I
The shimming model is a way to solve
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:32:58AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the
world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
IPv6 solved the addressing
On 10-Sep-2005, at 21:42, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination
of unworthy above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.]
And this is why v6 has failed and will continue to fail.
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't scale.
We disagree. And your hyperbole doesn't come close
Hi,
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one explanation for such a large difference (8.5x) between these two
numbers,
On Sep 11, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-sep-2005, at 8:31, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and
own address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each
home in the world being multihomed, it just doesn't
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one explanation for such a large
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS)
will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's technology.
SUP720-3BXL says 1M (500K v6) now, doesn't seem too much of a stretch
to 4M over many years
On 11-sep-2005, at 19:06, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
Unknown. Somewhat less than the number of hosts on the Internet,
somewhat more than one. My bet is closer to the latter than the
former.
Well, if you don't know the number of multihomers
On 11-sep-2005, at 20:34, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
2. Tell us how a routing table of that size (assuming 1 route per AS)
will scale based on reasonable extrapolations of today's
1. Give us a maximum number of multihomers.
4 Million
So how do you know it's 4 million and not 4.1?
Could be 4.1 or even 4.2. I'm assuming those
working on 4byte ASs know, if it's more we'll have
to migrate again which would be silly so soon
So about 4M it must be.
We know that 125k
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 06:32:58AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
address block, doesn't scale. Think this in the way of each home in the
world being multihomed, it just
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:51:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 11, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
This says that although there are 170k prefixes on the Internet,
there are
only 20k entities who actually need to announce IP space. There is
only
one
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
cause each end node knows about the upstream network 'problems' so well?
giving them full routes too are we? ( I don't want to fight this
arguement here, I'm just making a rhetorical question, one I hope there
will be a presentation this
]
Fecha: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:42:33 -0400
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
multi6 hasn't existed for some time
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], JORDI PALET MARTINEZ w
rites:
I don't think is failing ... On the other way around: looking at the
adoption perspectives and compared with other technologies, transition
stages, and so on, is going much faster than expected ...
About 4 years ago, I predicted that
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
An obvious corollary to this is that ISPs should be planning their v6
offerings now, too. This means routers, databases, operation support
systems, CPE for cable and DSL ISPs, etc. Those that don't are likely
to find themselves bypassed.
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service
providers
(with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :)
On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Getting back on-topic - how can
On 10-Sep-2005, at 09:18, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
multi6 hasn't existed for some time. The level-3 shim approach to
multi-homing that was the primary output of multi6 is being discussed
in shim6.
Suppose they not only have no plan but
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Google == AS 15169 which has 100 prefixes announced in my BGP.
I suspect they could qualify for IPv6 address space under any criteria.
I know
they could arrange to qualify, simply by buying an appropriate ISP.
They've got the cash.
most
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
multi6 hasn't existed for some time. The level-3 shim approach to
multi-homing that was the primary output of multi6 is being
discussed in shim6.
Guess I'm behind. I'll have to subscribe to
On Sep 10, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
most likely, but I was really saying: Do they even NEED PI
space? (for
this discussion, or rather the start of it, I don't think so...
I disagree. (Or, more precisely, I don't think _anyone_ needs v6
space right now 'cause it
on topic of IPv6 end-user assignments and value of multihoming
At 6:23 AM -0400 9/10/05, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
However, there are two proposals to ARIN to allow direct micro
assignments to end sites, these are supposed to be merged into one
by the 16th of this month, so people interested
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Content providers and other large business, without who's funds the Internet
would fail, have a right not to be tied to a single provider. And while I
Giving each entity who wants to multihome an AS of their own and own
address block, doesn't
50 matches
Mail list logo
