Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
What a committee with the fellow behind PSI (an ISP, no less!) on it is proposing is clever: use the same general principle with a range of IPv6 addresses. It isn't really that clever. For one thing, the standards for any given category of addresses will vary from one community to another, and so it will be impossible to reach a consensus on which entities should be included in or excluded from that category. Another problem is that the very categories themselves will vary from one community to another. Smallville USA might well endorse a "kids-only" address space, but what about an Arab country that wants a "Jew-free" address space, or another country that wants a "men-only" address space? The number of required addresses spaces might be infinite, and there would be no universal consensus on the vast majority of them.
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
Subject: Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:41:40 +0200 (CEST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran) [...] Incidentally, this sort of thing reveals to me the stark horror of NAT in an IPv6 Internet -- a misfiring rewrite rule could expose innocent children to shocking content their parents may not be equipped to explain. I assume this scenario will be dutifully added to all of the "Why NATs are Evil" documents. -tjs
Conformance Testing of MGCP, SIP etc
Hi, I am interested in knowing the conformance test for MGCP and SIP. Can someone here tell me the scheduled bakeoff meetings for MGCP and SIP for this year and next year. Thanks, Yixin Zhu
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
"Anthony Atkielski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It isn't really that clever. For one thing, the standards for any given category of addresses will vary from one community to another, Ah, no - the clever thing is partitioning the address space at all. Whether or not this particular partition is clever is something I do not address -- it is merely possible. Moreover, it is possible with a trade-off in the Internet between transport cost and efficiency versus extra globally-visible routing information. There are some added costs on the host side, but surely the folks behind draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-01.txt need to work that out for the general case of multihoming anyway. [many different partitions] The number of required addresses spaces might be infinite, and there would be no universal consensus on the vast majority of them. The IPv6 address space is pretty vast, or so we keep being told. This surely should be considered a huge victory for IPv6... We were forced to abandon the original structure of (classful) IPv4 because of address space constraints, and have been under pressure not to revise the current CIDR structure, because of space-conservation policies. Now with a much larger address space, and the allowance for support for multiple per-interface addresses in hosts and routers, we can explore totally different structures, such as partitioning on boundaries other than "large site", "medium site", "small site", and the CIDR refinements thereto (/32-sized-site, /31-sized-site, etc.). Sean.
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
Keith - | it's not practical in IPv6 either. What isn't? Partitioning at all, or using this particular partition? Sean.
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
What isn't? Partitioning at all, or using this particular partition? we've had technology for content labelling, and filtering based on such labels, for awhile. nobody uses it. a one-bit content label is even harder to use than the PICS stuff. all of the objections about this being improper use of the address space also apply, but even if those were overcome, the scheme still wouldn't solve any problems. it would accomplish nothing except to waste half of the IPv6 address space. twits. Keith
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
Keith - | a one-bit content label is even harder to use than the PICS stuff. | | all of the objections about this being improper use of the address | space also apply, but even if those were overcome, the scheme still | wouldn't solve any problems. it would accomplish nothing except to | waste half of the IPv6 address space. It does not have to be implemented by giving away "half" the address space. I don't know where "half" came from. The only requirement that I arrive at is the presence of a globally distinguished prefix, which does not have to be particularly short. The address-space consumption for a partition that is expected to connect itself logically together, rather than introduce "exception routing" in the form of longer prefixes, obviously could be quite small. Sean.
PAT
hy could anyone tell me whats PAT on cisco router is ? its in conjunction with ip domain-lookup on the router, but i didnt find anything about. thanks for help cu peter
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
we've had technology for content labelling, and filtering based on such labels, for awhile. nobody uses it. The reason for that is obvious. Content labelling only allows a person to filter what he sees himself. However, most people are not satisfied to filter out what they dislike for their eyes alone--they prefer to censor what they dislike at the source, so that _nobody else_ can see it, either. Content labelling does not provide for this type of censorship, and so nobody uses it.
Re: PAT
PAT Refers to Port Address Translation Newton's Telecom Dictionary (16th Edition) notes on p663 PAT is a feature which lets you number a LAN with inside local addresses and filter them through one globally routable IP address. PAT can also be called NAT (Network Address Translation) Hope this helps- Regards- Jasen - Original Message - From: "Peter Burggasser" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Mailinglist" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:34 AM Subject: PAT hy could anyone tell me whats PAT on cisco router is ? its in conjunction with ip domain-lookup on the router, but i didnt find anything about. thanks for help cu peter
RE: PAT
PAT = Port Address Translation Cisco 700 series routers provide PAT, enabling local hosts on a private IP network to communicate externally. Packets destined for an external address have their private IP address plus port number translated to the router's external IP address before the IP packet is forwarded to the WAN. IP packets returning to the router have their external IP addresses (plus port number) translated back to the private IP addresses, and the packets are forwarded to the LAN. When PAT is enabled, the transmission of RIP packets is automatically disabled to prevent a broadcast of the private IP addresses externally. Hope this helps. Cheers, Lillian Lillian Komlossy || Site Manager || http://www.dmnews.com || http://www.imarketingnews.com || 212 925-7300 ext. 232 || mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Peter Burggasser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 2:34 PM To: Mailinglist Subject: PAT hy could anyone tell me whats PAT on cisco router is ? its in conjunction with ip domain-lookup on the router, but i didnt find anything about. thanks for help cu peter - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
Re: PAT
note that private addresses were intended for networks that were not connected to the internet. the notion was that if you're not going to connect to the Internet, you don't need to consume private address space. NATs didn't enhance the process, they violated the assumption behind RFC 1918. they also violated IP, but who's counting?
Improving HTTP/DAV status reporting
A common concern raised by developers of WebDAV clients and servers is the deficiencies of HTTP/DAV status reporting. For example, two common problems are overloading of HTTP status codes to mean several different conditions, and the inability to precisely report many kinds of status using the existing status codes. Even when an existing status code does cover a condition well, there is no mechanism for passing supplemental status information. WebDAV provides two operand methods such as COPY and MOVE where an error could occur at the source or destination, a capability outside the scope of HTTP error reporting. It is also possible that multiple error conditions can simultaneously occur, yet only one can be reported in a response. Especially for 4xx series status codes, there is a limited number of status codes, leading to conservative use of status codes within the protocol development community, and leads to overloading of existing status codes. A principled expansion of the HTTP status code space seems to be a cornerstone of any effort to improve HTTP/DAV status reporting. To evaluate and address these concerns, a new mailing list has been created to discuss issues concerning improved HTTP/DAV status reporting. To post to this list, send your email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription instructions and archives are available at: http://mailman.webdav.org/mailman/listinfo/report This mailing list is welcome to all, and maintains a public archive. While the impetus for this discussion is coming from the WebDAV community, this problem affects HTTP broadly, and hence a new forum for discussion has been created. It is expected that list members will determine where specification work, if any, will take place. - Jim Whitehead [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:15:20 -0400 we've had technology for content labelling, and filtering based on such labels, for awhile. nobody uses it. a one-bit content label is even harder to use than the PICS stuff. all of the objections about this being improper use of the address space also apply, but even if those were overcome, the scheme still wouldn't solve any problems. it would accomplish nothing except to waste half of the IPv6 address space. And if we have one bit for "jew-free", and another bit for "arab-free", and another bit for "quebeque-approved" (where the content of every web page must be in both english and french), "chinese-governemnt-censored", etc., etc., etc., where hosts now have to have multiple IPv6 address prefixes to satisfy the needs of all of these power-hungry politicians that want to create their own filtered version of the Internet --- I wonder what happens to the size of routing tables that the core backbone routers will have to handle? - Ted
