On 6-mrt-2006, at 22:08, Owen DeLong wrote:
What I hear is any type of geography can't work because network
topology != geography. That's like saying cars can't work
because they
can't drive over water which covers 70% of the earth's surface.
No, it's more like saying Cars which can't
At 1:08 PM -0800 3/6/06, Owen DeLong wrote:
I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop. design,
simply because on the off chance it does provide useful aggregation, why
not. OTOH, I haven't seen anyone propose geotop allocation as a policy
in the ARIN region (hint to those
JC Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:38:50 -0500
JC From: John Curran
JC Does anyone have statistics for the present prefix mobility experiment
JC in the US with phone number portability? It would be interesting to
JC know what percent of personal and business numbers are now routed
JC permanently
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hm, I would rather do this globally but maybe this is the way to go...
Geo-aggregation is something that stands its best chance of being
implemented locally:
- the 'players' involved will be fewer
- requirements for a workable policy will be
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hm, I would rather do this globally but maybe this is the way to go...
Geo-aggregation is something that stands its best chance of being
implemented locally:
While I agree that any aggregation would happen locally, the
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Tony Hain wrote:
While I agree that any aggregation would happen locally, the
overall allocation policy for a consistent geo approach needs to be
done globally.
Ideally, yes. Failling that, it's still possible for it to be done
unilaterally at a regional level, there
--On March 7, 2006 1:38:50 PM -0500 John Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:08 PM -0800 3/6/06, Owen DeLong wrote:
I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop. design,
simply because on the off chance it does provide useful aggregation, why
not. OTOH, I haven't seen
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:59:18 +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 3 mar 2006, at 04.13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be,
in 2010 we might
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:17:26 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
[snip]
Unless we start now working on getting people moved to IPv6, the
pain of running out of IPv4 before IPv6 has reached critical mass
is going to be much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/03/2006 00:16:28:
On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term LIR is used in IPv6 allocation policy in all regions
no
Yes.
I checked all 5 RIR sites and they all use the term LIR
in their IPv6 policy. This is by design since the original
IPv6
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's face it, IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that any attempt to put a
price on IPv4 addresses will simply cause a massive migration to free
and plentiful IPv6 addresses.
Let's say we put a price of $1 per year per IP address you want allocated
to
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Let's say we put a price of $1 per year per IP address you want allocated to
you. For the people really using their IP addresses according to current
policy, this is nothing. For the people with historic allocations (/8 for
instance), they would
On 6-mrt-2006, at 3:52, Roland Dobbins wrote:
fixed geographic allocations (another nonstarter for reasons which
have been elucidated previously)
What I hear is any type of geography can't work because network
topology != geography. That's like saying cars can't work because
they can't
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Given the manifold difficulties we're facing today as a result of these two
design decisions (#2 is a 'hidden' reason behind untold amounts of capex and
opex being spent in frustratingly nonproductive ways), perhaps it is time to
consider declaring
On 6-mrt-2006, at 2:34, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
What Tony said, especially about what happened to 8+8. A lot of the
grounds for rejection were security, but there wasn't a single
security
person on the committee. In my opinion, most of the arguments just
didn't hold up.
[RB = routing
On 5-mrt-2006, at 20:38, Matthew Petach wrote:
Hotmail runs shim6 so that multihomed Hotmail users can keep sending
mail even when one ISP fails, while Gmail doesn't?
The customers who can't reach gmail will call their ISP to complain
about
the Internet being broken. They're not going to
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Shim6 is an answer to what kind of multihoming can we offer to sites
without PI space?; it is yet to be seen if anyone cares about the
answer to that question.
This argument is circular. The only real way to test demand is to offer
a service and see if customers bite.
On Mar 6, 2006, at 4:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sadly, many of the folks who are involved with ARIN are sadly short
sighted
in this regard. They dismiss both the idea of an address market
upon v4
exhaustion and the idea of clear title to address blocks.
I can imagine a similar
Thus spake Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Who exactly has been trying to find scalable routing solutions?
Well, for the last decade or so, there's been a small group of us who
have been working towards a new routing architecture. Primary
influences in my mind are Chiappa,
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's face it, IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that any
attempt to put a price on IPv4 addresses will simply
cause a massive migration to free and plentiful IPv6
addresses.
You assume that there will be a source of free and plentiful IPv6 addresses.
AFAIK, none of
Stephen,
Thus spake Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Who exactly has been trying to find scalable routing solutions?
Well, for the last decade or so, there's been a small group of us who
have been working towards a new routing architecture. Primary
influences in my
Stephen,
I'm not a fan of build it and they will come engineering.
I suppose a reasonable question one could ask is this: who's the
customer? Is the customer the ISP? I tend to actually it's the end
enterprise. But that's just me.
Eliot
--On March 6, 2006 12:46:51 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6-mrt-2006, at 3:52, Roland Dobbins wrote:
fixed geographic allocations (another nonstarter for reasons which
have been elucidated previously)
What I hear is any type of geography can't work
On 3/6/06 10:25 AM, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's face it, IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that any
attempt to put a price on IPv4 addresses will simply
cause a massive migration to free and plentiful IPv6
addresses.
You assume that there will
Thus spake Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/6/06 10:25 AM, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, unless there's policy change, most end-user orgs will have no
choice but to pay the market rate for IPv4 addresses. Spot markets
are good when demand is elastic, but we're faced with a
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:05:52 -0500
Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ARIN (and/or RIPE, APNIC) should really use a bit of their budget surplus to
provide a few grants to economics professors who are experts in commodity
market issues. As engineers, we grope in the dark concerning
On 3/6/06 6:14 PM, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/6/06 10:25 AM, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, unless there's policy change, most end-user orgs will have no
choice but to pay the market rate for IPv4 addresses. Spot
Not to digress too far, but, I guess that depends on your definition of
best.
I am sure that many peoples of this world would argue that capitalism has
been rather catastrophic in terms of resource allocation and resulting
effects with regard to oil, for example.
Owen
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's face it, IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that any
attempt to put a price on IPv4 addresses will simply
cause a massive migration to free and plentiful IPv6
addresses.
You assume that there will be a source of free and plentiful IPv6
addresses.
Why
On 4-Mar-2006, at 23:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
No support in big networks is required, beyond the presence of
shim6 in server stacks.
Why do you say this? Enterprises who multihome need their client
machines (tens and hundreds of thousands
On 5-mrt-2006, at 5:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
This fundamental misconception of the requirements of large
enterprise customers should be an indicator to proponents of shim6,
among others, that they do not have a good grasp of the day-to-day
operational and business realities faced by
On 5-mrt-2006, at 12:09, Ian Dickinson wrote:
As an irrelevent aside, when someone comes up with a way to
firewall/acl
shim6, how much breaks?
The idea is that there will be a shim6 header that can do two things:
carry shim6 signalling and carry data packets with rewritten
addresses
(oh how I'm going to regret jumping into this conversation at point 'here'
not at the beginning :( )
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5-mrt-2006, at 5:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
This fundamental misconception of the requirements of large
enterprise customers should be an
You are absolutely right that having to upgrade not only all hosts in a
multihomed site, but also all the hosts they communicate with is an
important weakness of shim6. We looked very hard at ways to do this type
of multihoming that would work if only the hosts in the multihomed site
were
At 07:37 AM 4/03/2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 3, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 mar 2006, at 06.16, Kevin Day wrote:
No, I'm just trying to be practical here... Estimates of IPv4 pool
exhaustion range from Mid 2008 (Tony Hain's ARIN presentation) to
roughly
At 07:43 AM 4/03/2006, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will actually
happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space.
That's a sucker bet.
What's worse is that unless people start
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of
pushing
routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source
Routing
is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic
years ago. Making source
On 5-Mar-2006, at 17:03, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
All this time, energy, and thought spent on shim6 would have been
better spent on a scalable IDR solution. Luckily, we still have
another decade or so to come up with something.
So the answer to the lack of a routing solution to
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Who exactly has been trying to find scalable routing solutions?
Well, for the last decade or so, there's been a small group of us who
have been working towards a new routing architecture. Primary
influences in my mind are Chiappa, O'Dell, Hain, Hinden, Nordmark,
What Tony said, especially about what happened to 8+8. A lot of the
grounds for rejection were security, but there wasn't a single security
person on the committee. In my opinion, most of the arguments just
didn't hold up.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mar 5, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Very little time has been spent on shim6 so far. Far more time
before that was spent on multi6, which considered many different
approaches to multi-homing.
Spending time in and of itself has no value, you're entirely
correct. Spending time
--On March 5, 2006 3:28:05 PM -0500 Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of
pushing
routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source
Routing
is a technology
On Mar 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Far from it, but, there are lessons to be
learned that are applicable to the internet, and, separating the
end system identifier from the routing function is one we still seem
determined to avoid for reasons passing my understanding.
And this
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:19:46 -0800
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG)
On Mar 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Far from it, but, there are lessons to be
learned that are applicable to the internet
On 3 mar 2006, at 04.13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be,
in 2010 we might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90%
deployment.
OTOH Teredo, which isn't
On 3 mar 2006, at 21.37, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will
actually happen is
the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space.
I won't bet against you, but it will only take you that far. At one
point IPv4 addresses will just
On Mar 4, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 3 mar 2006, at 21.37, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will
actually happen is
the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space.
I won't bet against you, but it will only
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:59:18 +0100
Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 mar 2006, at 04.13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be,
in 2010 we might
Mark Newton wrote:
I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
We've all decided that we can live without any network smaller
than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to
universal reachability.
What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes
If you feel you should qualify as an LIR,
With RIPE, an LIR is simply an organization that pays the membership
fee and thus gets to submit requests for address space and AS
numbers. ARIN doesn't seem to use this terminology except in their
IPv6 address allocation policy.
That's what
Right now, DDoS attacks from Botnets
are bad enough.
DDos!?!?!?
What about the $1 billion dollars of clickbot fraud that
the advertising industry is presently struggling with?
Has anyone ever put a figure on the cost of DDos per
year?
Where is the IETF leadership?
Not on the NANOG list...
On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you feel you should qualify as an LIR,
With RIPE, an LIR is simply an organization that pays the membership
fee and thus gets to submit requests for address space and AS
numbers. ARIN doesn't seem to use this terminology except in their
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3-mrt-2006, at 0:22, Mark Newton wrote:
Right now we can hand them out to anyone who demonstrates a need
for them. When they run out we'll need to be able to reallocate
address blocks which have already been handed out from orgs who
perhaps
On 2 mar 2006, at 06.16, Kevin Day wrote:
No, I'm just trying to be practical here... Estimates of IPv4 pool
exhaustion range from Mid 2008 (Tony Hain's ARIN presentation) to
roughly 2012 (Geoff Huston's ARIN presentation). Sooner if a mad
dash for space starts happening (or isn't
On 3/3/06 11:04 AM, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind that current RIR allocations/assignments are effectively leases
(though the RIRs deny that fact) and, like any landlord, they can refuse to
renew a lease or increase the rent at any point.
There might be some
Thus spake Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marshall,
That's after 6 years.
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was any
faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be, in 2010 we
might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90% deployment.
I actually
On 3-mrt-2006, at 17:04, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Keep in mind that current RIR allocations/assignments are
effectively leases (though the RIRs deny that fact) and, like any
landlord, they can refuse to renew a lease or increase the rent at
any point.
I can only imagine the fun the lawyers
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Man, I hope I never become as cynical as you.
A pessimist is never disappointed.
On 2-mrt-2006, at 11:09, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Why is it even remotely rational that a corporate admin trust 100k+
hosts infested with worms, virii, spam,
On Mar 3, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 mar 2006, at 06.16, Kevin Day wrote:
No, I'm just trying to be practical here... Estimates of IPv4 pool
exhaustion range from Mid 2008 (Tony Hain's ARIN presentation) to
roughly 2012 (Geoff Huston's ARIN presentation). Sooner
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will
actually happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4 address
space.
That's a sucker bet.
What's worse is that unless people start changing their tune soon and make
the
On 3-mrt-2006, at 21:43, Brandon Ross wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will
actually happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4
address space.
That's a sucker bet.
What's worse is that unless people start changing their tune soon
and make the
On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term LIR is used in IPv6 allocation policy in all regions
no
At 08:16 AM 3/4/2006 +0800, Randy Bush wrote:
On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term LIR is used in IPv6 allocation policy in all regions
no
Hmm...sure looks like it to me
http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/ipv6.html
2.4 A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 10:30:44AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you feel you should qualify as an LIR,
With RIPE, an LIR is simply an organization that pays the membership
fee and thus gets to submit requests for address space and AS
numbers. ARIN doesn't seem to use this
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:50:55PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 3-mrt-2006, at 21:43, Brandon Ross wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will
actually happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4
address space.
That's a sucker bet.
Thus spake Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm more confident that we'll find an answer
to the IDR problem sooner than we'll convince people to act in the good
of the community at their own expense.
The solution to the IDR problem is to have a scalable routing
architecture. Unfortunately, that
SS Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:05:36 -0600
SS From: Stephen Sprunk
SS Unfortunately, that involves change from the status quo, and thus
SS altruistic action.
SS
SS Only when self-interest and altruism are coincident is the latter
SS consistently achieved.
Witness BCP38, spam/worm cleanup,
On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term LIR is used in IPv6 allocation policy in all regions
no
Hmm...sure looks like it to me
i stand corrected. apologies.
randy
The alternative, of course, is to wait for IDR to implode and let the
finger-pointing begin.
... which is what I expect to happen. A few folks will see it coming,
design a fix, and everyone will deploy it overnight when they discover
they have no other choice. Isn't that about what
One thing that Geoff hasn't been cynical enough to put forward is
the idea that orgs with lots of valuable, monetized address space
may very well end up lobbying the IAB and RIRs to erect new cost
structures around green-fields IPv6 allocations as well, to make
sure that the profit-providing
The scope of
that policy mediation function depends strongly on
people like you
saying at a high level, this is the kind of
decision I am not happy
with the hosts making.
Resounding YES - I specifically DON'T want end-hosts
to be able to make these decisions, but need to be
Thus spake Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:55, David Barak wrote:
It isn't fearing change to ask the question it's not
broken today, why should I fix it?
What's broken today is that there's no mechanism available for people who
don't qualify for v6 PI space to multi-home.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resounding YES - I specifically DON'T want
end-hosts
to be able to make these decisions, but need to be
able to multihome.
When I see comments like this I wonder whether
people
understand what shim6 is all about. First of all,
these
aren't YOUR hosts.
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:07:33 +
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ snip ]
Is there something inherently wrong with independent
organizations deciding where to send their packets?
1. Many a transit seems to think so.
2. Is there an inherent need?
3. Is this DPA+sourceroute cocktail the best
On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ome.
When I see comments like this I wonder whether people
understand what shim6 is all about. First of all, these
aren't YOUR hosts. They belong to somebody else. If you
are an access provider then these hosts belong to a customer
that is
Putting the routing decisions in the hands of the servers(that we do
not control) requires that we somehow impart this routing policy on
our customers, make them keep it up to date when we change things,
and somehow enforce that they don't break the policy.
The same problems exist, on a
On 2-mrt-2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
they won't have to do this because the BGP multihoming
option will be available.
I guess you have a better crystal ball than I do.
On Mar 2, 2006, at 7:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
they won't have to do this because the BGP multihoming
option will be available.
Are you *sure* BGP multihoming will be
Man, I hope I never become as cynical as you.
On 2-mrt-2006, at 11:09, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Why is it even remotely rational that a corporate admin trust 100k+
hosts infested with worms, virii, spam, malware, etc. to handle
multihoming decisions?
They trust those hosts to do congestion
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how
to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes... I'm not sure we'll be there for a
few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs
to figure
So learn to love shim6 or help create something better. Complaining
isn't going to solve anything.
I am helping to create something better by supporting
the IPv6 PI address policy on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go here http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
to subscribe or to read the archives.
On 2-mrt-2006, at 16:20, Mark Newton wrote:
Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how
to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes... I'm not sure we'll be there for a
few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs
to figure out what the Internet is going to look
If all of your hosting is shared, the servers are your
responsibility, and you're not providing connectivity to anyone but
yourself. I don't think you qualify at all at this point.
If you're selling dedicated servers or colo space, it's a little
better, but I still don't think you fit.
On 3/2/06 7:57 AM, Edward B. DREGER [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:07:33 +
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ snip ]
Is there something inherently wrong with independent
organizations deciding where to send their packets?
1. Many a transit seems to think so.
2. Is
On 2-mrt-2006, at 17:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you feel you should qualify as an LIR,
With RIPE, an LIR is simply an organization that pays the membership
fee and thus gets to submit requests for address space and AS
numbers. ARIN doesn't seem to use this terminology except in
--On March 2, 2006 3:15:59 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2-mrt-2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
they won't have to do this because the BGP
Please consider also 2005-1 at
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html
Owen
pgpg8cW8ERncu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
The other PI assignment policies that have been proposed either
require that you have a /19 already in IPv4 (lots of hosting
companies don't have anything this size), or have tens/hundreds of
thousands of devices.
It has also been suggested that the simple presence of
multihoming
On 2-mrt-2006, at 22:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
One thing is very certain: today, a lot of people who have their
own PI
or even PA block with IPv4, don't qualify for one with IPv6.
While it's
certainly possible that the rules will be changed such that more
people
can get an IPv6 PI or PA
At 11:27 AM 3/2/2006 -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
There is a tremendous amount of effort being wasted here arguing against it
and even more so in the IETF, where time being wasted on shim6 could be
better spent on a new IDR paradigm.
Where is the IETF leadership?
I think the IRTF is the
On 3-mrt-2006, at 0:22, Mark Newton wrote:
You've probably seen Geoff Huston's comments about this; I tend
to agree with him here.
Geoff tends to make lots of comments, it's hard to either agree or
disagree with them all. :-)
When IPv4 space is exhausted, the sky won't fall; We'll
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Thu 02 Mar 2006, 17:03 CET]:
If your current business model means that your business
cannot continue in an IPv6 world, then a competent
business manager will change that model. If the IPv6
I assume that you mean that the IPv6 model will be changed, no?
Shim6 is an answer to what kind of multihoming can we offer to sites
without PI space?
as far as i can tell, s/sites/hosts/. to make it work for sites,
as yet unspecified middleware (adding even more complexity and thus
further reducing reliability (and margins)) will be needed if there
is
Hello;
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to
people whose
Marshall,
That's after 6 years.
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was any
faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be, in 2010 we
might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90% deployment.
I actually think that 2012 would be a more
On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from
their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto
larger ISPs, up to and
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people
whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual device, and
to do so in a scaleable way.
Only if
On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to
people whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual
device,
There is
talk at present of whether the protocol needs to be able to
accommodate a site-policy middlebox function to enforce site policy
Certainly, firewalls may be the only point such policy will work
when the hosts are hidden behind them on a corporate lan
10 years of host legacy
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:33:51AM -0500, John Payne wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people
whose entire infrastructure consists of an
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
