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
[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
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 [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,
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 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
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 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
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.
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
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
--- Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about some actual technical complaints about
shim6? The jerking
knees become tedious to watch, after a while.
Okay, if I'm an enterprise with 6 ISPs but don't
qualify for PI space, I'll need to get PA space from
all of them, for Shim6 to work,
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote:
Also, the current drafts don't support middleboxes,
which a huge number of enterprises use - in fact the
drafts specifically preclude their existence, which
renders this a complete non-starter for most of my
clients.
I have not yet reviewed the
--- Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just one guy, one ASN, and one content/hosting
network. But I
can tell you that to switch to using shim6 instead
of BGP speaking
would be a complete overhaul of how we do things.
You are not alone in fearing change.
It isn't fearing
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:55, David Barak wrote:
--- Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just one guy, one ASN, and one content/hosting
network. But I
can tell you that to switch to using shim6 instead
of BGP speaking
would be a complete overhaul of how we do things.
You are not alone in
On 1-mrt-2006, at 17:22, David Barak wrote:
I think that we could spend
our time better in coming up with a different approach
to addressing hierarchy instead.
I agree.
The address space is one dimensional. This means you can encode a
single thing in it in a hierarchical manner for free.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote:
If you include Web hosting company in your definition of ISP,
that's not true.
Right. I wasn't; I listed them separately.
It's important to note that even if you are a hosting company who
*does*
On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin Day wrote:
We have peering arrangements with about 120 ASNs. How do we mix
BGP IPv6 peering and Shim6 for transit?
You advertise all your PA netblocks to all your peers.
Ok, I was a bit too vague there...
How do we ensure that peering connections are
Kevin Day wrote:
If you include Web hosting company in your definition of ISP, that's
not true. Unless you're providing connectivity to 200 or more networks,
you can't get a /32. If all of your use is internal(fully managed
hosting) or aren't selling leased lines or anything, you are not
On 1-Mar-2006, at 18:29, Randy Bush wrote:
You will note I have glossed over several hundred minor details (and
several hundred more not-so-minor ones). The protocols are not yet
published; there is no known implementation.
possibly this contributes to the sceptisim with which this is
For those watching and grumbling, I'll move the discussion to a shim6
mailing list, or in private if anyone wants to continue beyond this.
Just make sure you cc: me if you move the discussion somewhere else.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed enterprise customer
o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
never under-estimate the range and productivity of Pekka!
[Crossposted to shim6 and NANOG lists, please don't make me regret
this... Replies are probably best sent to just one list for people
who don't subscribe to both.]
On 27-feb-2006, at 22:13, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is it the consensus of the shim6 working group that the
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
A --- B
/ \
X Y
\ /
C --- D
C's link to D may be low capacity or expensive, so D would prefer it if X
would send traffic to Y over another route if possible. C can make this happen
in BGP by prepending
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[Crossposted to shim6 and NANOG lists, please don't make me regret
this... Replies are probably best sent to just one list for people
who don't subscribe to both.]
On 27-feb-2006, at 22:13, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Just to be clear, are you speaking from the perspective of an access
provider, or of an enterprise?
Joe
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Just to be clear, are you speaking from the perspective of an
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:52, Kevin Day wrote:
I'm not saying shim6 is flawed beyond anyone being able to use it.
I can see many scenarios where it would work great. However, I'm
really wary of it becoming the de facto standard for how *everyone*
multihomes if they're under a certain size.
On 28-feb-2006, at 16:34, Todd Vierling wrote:
A B Y
C C C D Y
All else being equal, X will choose the path over A to reach Y.
There's plenty of route mangler technologies out there that provide
overriding BGP information to borders that trumps path length.
All else
is often not as
On 28-feb-2006, at 17:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Well, you can't do anything with shim6 because it doesn't exist yet.
That's the good part: if you speak up now, you
On Feb 28, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the DNS
for the end hosts come from?
On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the
DNS for the end hosts come from?
...or in another way. Don't worry too much about this
--On February 28, 2006 5:15:37 PM -0500 John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators
On Feb 28, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-feb-2006, at 17:09, Kevin Day wrote:
4) Being able to do 1-3 in realtime, in one place, without waiting
for DNS caching or connections to expire
How fast is real time?
And are we just talking about changing preferences
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't
worry too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the
DNS for the end hosts come
On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
telling us to
sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best.
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too
few operators involved in
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
telling us to
sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best.
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there
How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed enterprise customer
o a small to medium
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:09, Randy Bush wrote:
How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:06, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.
Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by
this thing called Moore's law.
I don't know that anybody can tell how bad it might be. It'd be a
shame if it
On 26-okt-2005, at 19:36, David Meyer wrote:
Thanks. I'd also like to thank Geoff, Jason, Vijay, Ted,
and everyone to participated in the BOF. I found the
session to be quite productive, and I hope that it will
form the foundation for an ongoing dialog.
I was
I was hoping to have all of this streamed to my computer, but so far, there
are no archived streams... Aren't there any archived streams anymore, or does
it take some more time for them to appear?
The latter. We're processing the streams now, and they should be available
next week.
John,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:08:50AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
From: John Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: shim6 @ NANOG
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:11:45 -0400
Public thanks to Dave, Geoff, Vijay, Ted and Jason for their
involvement in bringing shim6 to the NANOG
100 matches
Mail list logo
