Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
On 21 Feb 2013, at 02:46, Carlos M. martinez carlosm3...@gmail.commailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote: Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ? Use all evil bits for IP addresses and we'll soon have no need for IPv6. Geoff Huston and I wrote a draft to use the evil bit to indicate the presence of IPv4 NATs. It could be used as a tie-breaker for Happy Eyeballs. It's expired, though. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bellis-behave-natpresent-00 Ray
Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carlos M. martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote: Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ? Yes, but we need an RFC for that. From RFC 3514: 6. IANA Considerations This document defines the behavior of security elements for the 0x0 and 0x1 values of this bit. Behavior for other values of the bit may be defined only by IETF consensus [RFC2434]. --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
Sent from my iPad On Feb 16, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote: On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the octets*. For example, it cannot handle 257. It also cannot handle 321, nor 19.3... Ok, it is obvious Friday...somewhere... Once when being on IESG way back when I was tasked to write the response to the letter we got with a suggestion on an alternative solution for the running out of IPv4 addresses problem. The proposal was to not stop counting at 255 in each of the four numbers separated by periods, but continue to (at least) 999. That's also a solved problem -- there is even a draft about it : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terrell-math-quant-ternary-logic-of-binary-sys-01 You just use ternary logic instead of binary and all your problems are solved... or something...I get a little lost during the proof of Fermat's... W Patrik
Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the octets*. For example, it cannot handle 257. It also cannot handle 321, nor 19.3... Ok, it is obvious Friday...somewhere... Once when being on IESG way back when I was tasked to write the response to the letter we got with a suggestion on an alternative solution for the running out of IPv4 addresses problem. The proposal was to not stop counting at 255 in each of the four numbers separated by periods, but continue to (at least) 999. Patrik
Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
On 16 Feb 2013 07:03, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote: On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the octets*. For example, it cannot handle 257. It also cannot handle 321, nor 19.3... Ok, it is obvious Friday...somewhere... Once when being on IESG way back when I was tasked to write the response to the letter we got with a suggestion on an alternative solution for the running out of IPv4 addresses problem. The proposal was to not stop counting at 255 in each of the four numbers separated by periods, but continue to (at least) 999. Seems quite sensible to me. After all, we do this in TELNET option negotiation.
