--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 March 7, 2006 4:29:28 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 w
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 wou
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,
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
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
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 tho
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
>
> 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
addre
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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
Thus spake "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 t
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
>
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
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
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 sce
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 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 c
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 b
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 t
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 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 re
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
> I can tell you this: the only scalable solutions
> on the horizon are:
>
> - moving multihoming related state out of the DFZ (this is what shim6
> does)
This is what geo-topological addressing does.
> - remove the requirement that every DFZ router carries every prefix,
> which can't be don
[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 origina
> 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 scenario in the boardrooms
of Exxon et al. A young executiv
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 goin
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 20
> De: Roland Dobbins <[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:
&g
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 is
--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
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 t
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
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,
Atkin
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 multi-homing
Thus spake "Joe Abley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Was it not the lack of any scalable routing solution after many years of
trying that led people to resort to endpoint mobility in end systems, à
la shim6?
Who exactly has been trying to find scalable routing solutions?
IPv6 advocates have been pus
On 5-mrt-2006, at 17:37, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
The solution is routing based on geography: give every city of ~ 250k
people a /32, and give people who multihome in or near that city a /
48 out of that /32.
can the v6 table/space work with 6B /48's?
It can if you distribute those 6G
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 rou
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 c
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 20
> 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
>
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> Of course having a TCP session or the like change addresses halfway
> through the session may throw stateful firewalls a bit.
>
I just love that shim6 basically == natv6... It WILL be implemented as
such if available to folks in that manner. I d
ME> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:01:14 -0500
ME> From: Marshall Eubanks
ME> So, if we gave every active ASN a contiguous IPv6 block, and moved
ME> everyone over to IPv6, we would REDUCE the size of the routing table
ME> by a factor of 8.28. That would gain several years of growth before
ME> the routi
(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 b
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 aft
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 large
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 o
On 4-mrt-2006, at 22:31, Matthew Petach wrote:
And given that any network big enough to get their own PI /32 has
*zero*
incentive to install/support shim6 means that all those smaller
networks
that are pushed to install shim6 are going to see *zero* benefit
when they
try to reach the majo
On 4 mar 2006, at 17.43, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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
Thus spake "Mark Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:50:55PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 3-mrt-2006, at 21:43, Brandon Ross wrote:
> >What's worse is that unless people start changing their tune soon
> >and make the ownership of IP space official, this will be a bl
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 of them) to be able to take
advantage of multiho
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:50:55PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 3-mrt-2006, at 21:43, Brandon Ross wrote:
> >What's worse is that unless people start changing their tune soon
> >and make the ownership of IP space official, this will be a black
> >market (like it is now, just mu
On 4-Mar-2006, at 16:31, Matthew Petach wrote:
And given that any network big enough to get their own PI /32 has
*zero*
incentive to install/support shim6 means that all those smaller
networks
that are pushed to install shim6 are going to see *zero* benefit
when they
try to reach the maj
Hello;
On Mar 4, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On 3/4/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
>> We got lucky with CIDR because even though all default free
>> routers had to be upgraded in a short time, it really wasn't that
>>
On 3/4/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:>> We got lucky with CIDR because even though all default free>> routers had to be upgraded in a short time, it really wasn't that>> painful.
[Because there was no need to renumber]> Isn't that an ex
On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
We got lucky with CIDR because even though all default free
routers had to be upgraded in a short time, it really wasn't that
painful.
[Because there was no need to renumber]
Isn't that an excellent argument against shim6 though?
In IPv4, somet
On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Steven M. Bellovin 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 have 70% deployment and in 2012 we migh
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
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 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 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 e
On Mar 4, 2006, at 2:21 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
... 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
happened with CIDR, in a nutshell?
We
On 4-mrt-2006, at 3:05, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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 hav
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 ma
>> 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 wha
>>> 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
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 cleanu
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
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 suck
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
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 t
> 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 involves change from the status quo,
> On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The term LIR is used in IPv6 allocation policy in all regions
no
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 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 owners
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
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, m
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
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 "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 actua
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 so
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 happeni
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
perh
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
IP
> 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..
> > 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
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 f
--- Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider that the IETF
> *could* conceivably
> require every compliant v6 implementation to include
> it.
God Forbid. I somehow don't want my core routers
deciding to speak shim6...
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.liste
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
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 enti
> 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
* [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?
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 sim
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:44:01PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >And why would those people consider migrating to IPv6?
>
> Because they can't get IPv4 addresses or so many other people use
> IPv6 (because _they_ can't get IPv4 addresses) that communicating
> with them natively
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 righ
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
