Re: Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]
Why during the F2F IETF meeting? It seems that is not a good way to use the time of an AD during the F2F IETF meeting. I think is a good idea to provide people remote-access to ADs, but doing it during the F2F IETF meeting does not look like a good use of resources. /as On 7/27/13 9:14 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Booking a 2 minute remote speach at IETF-meetings from remote-community to an IETF AD or WG-Chair can be a new opportunity that IETF/IESG can think about to schedule in future.
Re: Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]
At 15:10 26-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote: However, the IETF has been having a lot of discussions about newcomers, diversity, and attracting new folks to participate and get work done. I think those populations will be better served if it is possible for people a lot less experienced than the two of us can participate actively and constructively without attending every meeting. I also think that, especially for many people from developing countries, universities, small companies, and far-away places, we will be far more successful in recruiting if we can encourage remote participation as a starting point with the expectation of getting people physically to meetings only after the value to them and their organizations of doing so has been demonstrated. I'd personally even favor making remote participation at a could of meeting be a prerequisite for most applications for ISOC's IETF Fellows program. Discussions that do not translation into actions are, well, discussions. What is the easiest to enable the person from the university participate in the IETF meeting; what is the easiest way to enable the person from the small company to participate in the IETF meeting? It is: (a) an audio stream (b) a jabber service (c) a jabber scribe (a) and (b) are already available. (c) is doable. Will there be any results from that? No. Why should the IETF do that then? Because it is simple, it is cheap, and if it works, who knows, there may be results. But the above picture isn't going to happen unless we are serious and treat that seriousness as an integral part of our strategies about newcomers and diversity. Seriousness to me says that we get more careful about how experienced one has to be to find critical information, that we make sure remote participation works, and that we make any session that would be relevant to remote participants accessible to them (and with materials available as much as possible in advance and from easy-to-find places). Seriousness implies that, if there are extra costs, we figure out how to cover them (or how to cut somewhere else). Making information available is a first-step in getting things to work. Please note that I do not see that as publishing some random web page. I see that as making the information readily available to the target audience. I'll quote part of a message from Benoit Claise: 'Let me explain what the targeted audience is for those posters. It's not intended for the people who know about a specific BoF and plan on participating. It's intended for people who have not prepared for a specific BoF, but just come to listen to it, and in the end, go to mic. to provide some useful feedback: pay attention to this!, similar work was done ..., don't forget that ..., don't forget OPS ;-)' It is a down-to-earth explanation about how to get people interested in a specific BoF. Two years ago (minus one day) Brian Carpenter objected to the fact that the regular audio streaming is not available for the plenaries. The link for the technical plenary audio stream is not available in the (tools) agenda. Or, if we are not serious, it would probably be to the benefit of the community for us to face that and stop wasting energy and resources on outreach efforts that are expensive in one or the other (or both). It is a waste of energy and money to pursue outreach efforts if the IETF is not serious about how to lower the barriers for newcomers and its strategy about diversity. Regards, -sm
Re: Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]
On 7/27/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: one locates it (IETF Home Page - IESG - Members) one even gets contact information as a bonus. And the listing of AD names is pretty useless without contact info. As from my remote participant experience in IETF Routing Area (rtg), I was very happy/encouraged to be able to speak directly (issue related to MANET WG) to the AD of rtg at his open-office session at a previous IETF meeting (even 2 minutes makes big differences). Giving a chance to remote participants to speak to WG chairs or ADs is good to encourage remote-participants/new-interested-people to start thinking to join the meetings. I suggest that all ADs for other areas do the same if available (I am not sure if they do that, but if they do, that is great). Furthermore, if mentoring is available for remote participants then the mentor may book a time if needed with WG chair or AD, otherwise an agreed time communication can continue directly between mentor and participant. Booking a 2 minute remote speach at IETF-meetings from remote-community to an IETF AD or WG-Chair can be a new opportunity that IETF/IESG can think about to schedule in future. AB
Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]
And there is a Training section in the meeting materials page. It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it there. All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it. Regards Brian On 27/07/2013 08:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 27/07/2013 03:32, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. For a newcomer or someone expecting to write I-Ds, some of the most important sessions at the IETF are the various Sunday afternoon tutorials and introductions. Many of them are (or should be) of as much interest to remote participants as to f2f attendees. Until and unless a newcomer's tutorial can be prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that session should be of interest. For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant to at least some remote participants: Newcomers' Orientation Tools for Creating I-Ds and RFCs IAOC Overview Session Multipath TCP Applying IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) to Network Measurement and Management So... (1) The note below strongly implies that none of those sessions are being audiocast.Why not and can that be fixed? I think that would mean that the crew (partly volunteers) would need to mobilise 24 hours earlier. Not impossible, I suppose, but not free of costs either. (2) There is no hint on the agenda or tools agenda about availability of presentation and related materials (slides, etc.) for those sessions. Do those materials not exist? At the moment the various EDU tutorials usually get posted after the event, and I agree that isn't ideal. It would be useful for all these ancillary sessions to be included in the meeting materials page and all agenda tools (official and volunteer). Again, not impossible, in fact very desirable IMHO, but not free. Brian I know, but a newcomer or remote participant might not, that I can find some tutorials by going to the IETF main page and going to Tutorial under Resources, but I have no idea which of those links actually reflects what will be presented on Sunday. Assuming the presentation materials do exist for at least several of the sessions, finding them is much like the situation with subscribing to the 87all list. It should no involve a treasure hunt at which only very experienced IETF participants can be expected to succeed. Specific suggestions: (i) Let's get these open Sunday sessions audiocast and/or available over Meetecho or WebEx. If that is impossible for IETF 87, it should be a priority for IETF 88 and later. (ii) If there are presentation materials available, links from the tools agenda and an announcement to IETF-Announce as to where to find them would be desirable. (iii) If presentation materials are not available, why not? And, more important, can this be made a requirement for IETF 88 and beyond? thanks, john --On Friday, July 26, 2013 12:00 +0200 Nick Kukich nkuk...@verilan.com wrote: Greetings, For those interested in monitoring sessions or participating remotely the following information may prove useful. ... All 8 parallel tracks at the IETF 87 meeting will be broadcast starting with the commencement of working group sessions on Monday, July 29, 2013 at 0900 CEST (UTC+2) and continue until the close of sessions on Friday, August 2nd. ...
Re: Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 08:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: And there is a Training section in the meeting materials page. It's empty... but thanks to somebody for putting it there. All we need to do is figure out how to pre-load it. And to remember that link appears on the main meeting page because it isn't on either of the agenda pages. I suggest again that these little treasure hunts work better for very experienced participants and regular participants who are very patient about searching for information, but much less well for newcomers, remote-only participants, and the diverse and curious potential participants we'd supposedly like to encourage. I still believe that the agenda pages should be one-step shopping for these types of meeting program-specific bits of information, whether it be remote participation bits (or at lest a pointer to whether they can be found) and meeting material pages (ditto). It is slightly extraneous information but I note that we have had a list of Areas and ADs on the agenda pages ever since I can remember. That information is much more easily located than most of the things I've been commenting on and, if one locates it (IETF Home Page - IESG - Members) one even gets contact information as a bonus. And the listing of AD names is pretty useless without contact info. More inline. ... (1) The note below strongly implies that none of those sessions are being audiocast.Why not and can that be fixed? I think that would mean that the crew (partly volunteers) would need to mobilise 24 hours earlier. Not impossible, I suppose, but not free of costs either. Brian, there are two reasons I'm pushing on this set of issues. One is that there are folks like you and me (and, since he dropping into a different part of the thread, SM) who are reasonably experienced participants but who are not likely to attend most or all f2f meetings in the future. To the extent to which it is in the IETF's interest to keep us active --and I hope that it is-- then a lot of this stuff ought to work (even though we will know about and, given enough patience, be able to find meeting materials lists, mechanisms to subscribe to slightly-hidden mailing lists, the actual names and locations of incorrect links to drafts, names of BOF Chairs and responsible ADs, etc. If we are desperately concerned about hearing a particular tutorial, I imagine that, with a little planning, either of us could find someone to sit in the room and do a Skype or equivalent if there was a functional network or get someone to sit in the room with a voice recorder and make something that could be converted into an MP3 file for transmission after the network comes up. I assume that, were the question posed, there would be general IETF consensus that I run out of patience a lot faster than you do. I'm willing to concede that and agree that anything that doesn't irritate you too is my problem and I should live with it. I certainly would have a lot of difficulty arguing for folks going to a lot of extra trouble or expense on my account (or even on yours). However, the IETF has been having a lot of discussions about newcomers, diversity, and attracting new folks to participate and get work done. I think those populations will be better served if it is possible for people a lot less experienced than the two of us can participate actively and constructively without attending every meeting. I also think that, especially for many people from developing countries, universities, small companies, and far-away places, we will be far more successful in recruiting if we can encourage remote participation as a starting point with the expectation of getting people physically to meetings only after the value to them and their organizations of doing so has been demonstrated. I'd personally even favor making remote participation at a could of meeting be a prerequisite for most applications for ISOC's IETF Fellows program. But the above picture isn't going to happen unless we are serious and treat that seriousness as an integral part of our strategies about newcomers and diversity. Seriousness to me says that we get more careful about how experienced one has to be to find critical information, that we make sure remote participation works, and that we make any session that would be relevant to remote participants accessible to them (and with materials available as much as possible in advance and from easy-to-find places). Seriousness implies that, if there are extra costs, we figure out how to cover them (or how to cut somewhere else). Or, if we are not serious, it would probably be to the benefit of the community for us to face that and stop wasting energy and resources on outreach efforts that are expensive in one or the other (or both). best, john
Oh we glass house residents (was: discouraged by .docx)
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:00:27PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: requirement should only call for use of extremely well-established data representations, where 'extremely well-established' means highly stable and massively widespread for a significant number of years. Like, for instance, a page-layout format that depends on the physical medium (apprently one current on a line printer some time in the distant past) in order to establish things like word wrapping? When we start to have a serious discussion about coping with the IETF's own ridiculous formatting rules (which are not plain ASCII, before anyone starts with that self-evidently false line of argument), then I will have sympathy for arguments that we should start making rules about what we can accept. As long as we're so conservative in what we send that our output is, in its official form, unreadable on 2/3 of the computers I regularly use, I think we should be extremely liberal in what we accept. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
oh
was I suppose to send that to majordomo? -ttyl, --chris DigitalAtoll BBS Webhosting http://digitalatoll.flnet.org/ Multi-Platform FTP - POP3 - SMTP Competively priced!
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Thus spake "Mahadevan Iyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? Public power systems are not life-and-death. Anywhere that AC service is even moderately important, the people responsible (assuming they're competent) will have contingencies for power loss. Consider the ISPs that *voluntarily* go off-grid when there's a power crisis in the SF Bay. Hospitals also make an interesting study. Food for thought (copied from Risks): -- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:18:53 -0500 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Illinois man dies after utility cuts power I found the following story at the *Chicago Sun-Times*. http://www.suntimes.com:80/output/news/vent12.html Man dies after ComEd cuts power July 12, 2000 BY DAN ROZEK AND STEVE WARMBIR SUBURBAN REPORTERS An elderly Aurora man who used an electrically powered oxygen system to help him breathe died in his home several hours after ComEd shut off the power because he was behind in his bills. In Aurora, Illinois, Eric Shackelford, an 81-year-old man, used oxygen 24 hours a day to help him breathe; he suffered from "severe heart disease." His daughter, Renia Thomas of Chicago, claims that the power cutoff shut his oxygen down, and may bring a wrongful-death lawsuit against the power company, Commonwealth Edison. The story reports, however, that a roommate says Shackelford had two oxygen systems, one of which did not depend on electrical power. The RISKS relevance is in the dispute over record-keeping. The family says that Shackelford's doctor had sent at least two letters to ComEd asking that power not be shut off. A ComEd spokesman, however, said the utility had never received enough information to determine that Shackelford was entitled to be added to a list of about 1,000 customers who needed continuous electric power for medical equipment. ComEd files contain only one letter from a doctor regarding Shackelford, ComEd spokesman Don Kirchoffner said. "We would never, ever cut the power to anyone we thought was on life support," Kirchoffner said. [...] A final notice sent in June said Shackelford should notify ComEd if he had medical equipment that required electricity, and there's no record anyone contacted the utility, Kirchoffner said. [...] Kane County Coroner David Moore said it was unclear whether the power shutdown caused or contributed to Shackelford's death. It would be interesting to know more about the process by which a power company keeps track of customers who are dependent on power. How do you make such a process fail-safe? Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 22:06:13 BST, Lloyd Wood said: in an ideal world, airlines don't _have_ differentiated seat pricing. Of course, in reality, they split them into coach and tolerable. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:52:25 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: why not consider all the dimentions, ever heard of polyfractal space ? Fabricating the router connections would be interesting WHat sort of crimping tool would it take to make a 2.75D connector stay on the cable? ;) PGP signature
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). I think we'll see IP addressable toasters and washing machines just after we all switch from automobiles to hovercars and from telephones to Picturephones. According to predictions being made by futurists for the past few decades, all of these things are due to happen Real Soon Now. The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it should be done.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
see www.ipnsig.org vint At 09:46 PM 8/3/2000 -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There is already a lot of work being done on the Interplanetary Internet problem. Vint Cerf has lead pioneering work with people at JPL on the problem. I don't remember the URL but it should be easy to find. The current achitecture (last I checked) was for basically independent networks on each planet with gateways at the planetary borders. There are some facinating problems that come up when you think about it. - --- Phil = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
The IPv6 address blocks allocated by ARIN are much much larger, so the price per address for an ISP is considerably lower. And IPv6 will be exhausted just as quickly or more quickly than IPv4 in consequence. Doesn't anyone ever learn? The same mistakes are being made over and over. There's no point in going to IPv6 if blocks of wasted addresses will be increased in size to go along with it. You just end up in the same boat, with no addresses left.
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Peter Dawson writes: v6 address space works out to about 1500 address per sq mtr of the earth's surface... NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ? Not relevant. IPv6 will be exhausted by overly-generous allocation of address space, just like IPv4. I've already explained in the past why this must be so. In part, it comes from the subjective impression that any new address space is "more than we'll ever need" and the tendency to overallocate in consequence, until it's too late; this is probably the most common engineering mistake in IT history. Another reason why IPv6 is not nearly as large as it appears to be is that IP addresses are closely linked to routing, instead of being randomly assigned; and this routing imposes severe restrictions on how the address space can be used. Both issues are routinely and completely overlooked, even though they are responsible for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 today, even though we don't have four billion computers on the Internet yet. In the past, I've suggested open-ended IP addressing to permanently solve this (similar to the way telephone numbers are assigned today), but there wasn't much interest. Perhaps a few years from now, when it becomes necessary to go to IPv12, which will have "more space than we'll ever need," I'll try again.
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? Or do you think, it is possible to build ultra-reliable secure real-time communication channels in the Internet? Maybe.. On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Dennis Glatting wrote: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote: [snip] burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock their customers in to particular services. not my idea of a desirable state. It might also be a good way for script kiddies to efficiently scan the Internet looking for a particular manufacturer's device to exploit a discovered security flaw, such as turning off a stove's gas pilot and turning on all burners. If that doesn't sound realistic, how about a cracker inside a manufacturer's systems doing the same; or how about a terrorist? It is reasonable to assume that HVAC systems will someday soon be controlled over the Internet by a maintenance firm (video surveillance systems already are controlled and monitored over the Internet). It may become possible, for example, to raise building temperatures across the lower Manhattan area and shut down most financial centers, at least for a short while.
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote: The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it should be done. Definitely - what benefit can I get from my toaster having Internet conectivity when I will be able to use my blender to read mail? -- steven
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis Glatting wrote: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote: [snip] burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock their customers in to particular services. not my idea of a desirable state. It might also be a good way for script kiddies to efficiently scan the Internet looking for a particular manufacturer's device to exploit a discovered security flaw, such as turning off a stove's gas pilot and turning on all burners. If that doesn't sound realistic, how about a cracker inside a manufacturer's systems doing the same; or how about a terrorist? Though if the devices already use ethernet, then each device would already have its own MAC address, and the IP address would be DHCP assignable. As stated earlier once firewall/routers/DHCP server combos come down in price, preferbly below $200, you will probably see these devices as becoming standard. These devices would provide a level of intrusion security and would be able to assign address to the devices in the home, as is already done in most LANs. Andre
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mahadevan Iyer wrote: At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? I believe: * Engineers will build any possible feature into a product, install back doors, and not adequately test their code. Of course complexity (IPsec, policies, etc.) will probably not make adequate testing possible. * Marketing to demand all kinds of crazy features and convince the public at large they need them. * Lawyers to write liability limitations and unintelligible wording into warrantee and purchase contracts. * Consumers and providers to not properly configure devices and maintain them. * Congress (USA) to pass liability limiting laws. * Crackers to find holes and post cracking scripts. Today we have remote control (not over the Internet, AFAIK) of alarm systems and HVAC systems. The Internet provides a far greater reach and a more cost effective model of managing these and other systems. So, I believe these and many other systems will eventually find themselves connected to the Internet. Additionally, there have been several articles in the popular press in the past few years of the advertising community salivating at the idea of displaying advertisements on home appliances via the Internet -- imagine the "free Internet" equivalent of a "free dishwasher." Or do you think, it is possible to build ultra-reliable secure real-time communication channels in the Internet? Maybe.. No I do not believe so, but not so much for technological reasons; rather for the reasons I previously listed. On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Dennis Glatting wrote: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote: [snip] burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock their customers in to particular services. not my idea of a desirable state. It might also be a good way for script kiddies to efficiently scan the Internet looking for a particular manufacturer's device to exploit a discovered security flaw, such as turning off a stove's gas pilot and turning on all burners. If that doesn't sound realistic, how about a cracker inside a manufacturer's systems doing the same; or how about a terrorist? It is reasonable to assume that HVAC systems will someday soon be controlled over the Internet by a maintenance firm (video surveillance systems already are controlled and monitored over the Internet). It may become possible, for example, to raise building temperatures across the lower Manhattan area and shut down most financial centers, at least for a short while.
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
"Dawson, Peter D" wrote: good point... but I do wonder how the border edge router will handle a datagram with TTL approx 240 sec's ( i.e min time required for msg to pass between earth = mars) ? what about jitters, latency ,dropped packets, icmpv6 err msg well whatever Well, back to UUCP, then :-) *nearly just kidding* -- Måns NilssonDNS Technichian +46 709 174 840 NIC-SE +46 8 545 85 707MN1334-RIPE
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Mahadevan Iyer writes: At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter= of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? I think there are lots of idiots out there preparing to do exactly this.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Toaster is much more quite, even it takes more time. And all your mail will have brown-gold colour, while in blender you get everything mixed up:-) -Original Message- From: Steven Cotton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote: The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it should be done. Definitely - what benefit can I get from my toaster having Internet conectivity when I will be able to use my blender to read mail? -- steven
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis Glatting wrote: On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Andre-John Mas wrote: [SNIP] Though if the devices already use ethernet, then each device would already have its own MAC address, and the IP address would be DHCP assignable. As stated earlier once firewall/routers/DHCP server combos come down in price, preferbly below $200, you will probably see these devices as becoming standard. These devices would provide a level of intrusion security and would be able to assign address to the devices in the home, as is already done in most LANs. Firewalls do indeed provide a level of security but they are also vulnerable to attack and code and configuration entropy -- there are many examples of this. Also, if you have a trusted party managing your HVAC system and that trusted part is cracked, a firewall will probably provide no defense. I suppose what's needed here is some sort of EPROM, that stores an image of the system, and re-copies that image to main memory every day. The EPROM could only be written to by pressing a hardware switch, otherwise it is read-only. Since there are Linux based firewall solutions that fit on a floppy, this sort of approach shouldn't be too difficult. Andre
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?= Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] good point... but I do wonder how the border edge router will handle a datagram with TTL approx 240 sec's ( i.e min time required for msg to pass between earth = mars) ? what about jitters, latency ,dropped packets, icmpv6 err msg well whatever Well, back to UUCP, then :-) *nearly just kidding* Which of the UUCP protocols would tolerate such RTT's? Don't you remember why Telebit had to add "UUCP spoofing"? The g protocol had a pretty small maximum sized window. of course e and t don't count since they assume a loss-free wire. TCP with large windows already works where UUCP never did. That's not to disagree with the notion the UUCP has a lot to recommend itself even today, or that you couldn't make a new and different UUCP protocol that would tolerate the RTT to Pluto. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
The world connected Hmm Now I'm thinking Virus's /Jon/div -Original Message- From: Evstiounin, Mikhail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 4:08 PM To: Steven Cotton; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Toaster is much more quite, even it takes more time. And all your mail will have brown-gold colour, while in blender you get everything mixed up:-) -Original Message- From: Steven Cotton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote: The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it should be done. Definitely - what benefit can I get from my toaster having Internet conectivity when I will be able to use my blender to read mail? -- steven
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
-Original Message- From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Mahadevan Iyer writes: At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter= of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? I think there are lots of idiots out there preparing to do exactly this. My logics have failed me due to the above text: which of the following you mean. 1) Any one who is preparing to do above will belong to a set called "Idiots", 2) Only people who already belong to a set called "Idiots" are preparing to do it. Hey - don't take it seriously it is friday. On a change note, what about the use of secure tunnels using IPSEC? Won't that solve problem. Perhaps not in all cases. I think you need - security, performance guarantee, network path reliability and ability to control restoration paths. Security is only one dimension to the issue of who controls the end to end delivery system in critical applications. It is hard to be sure of an event outcome if you are not in control of all variables that can affect the system. Basic control theory. Do you think people who design these systems flunked their control theory course (may be they concentrated too much on computer science :-))? Cheers, --brijesh Ennovate Networks Inc.
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:26:55 PDT, Mahadevan Iyer said: At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use something like a telco switch to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like the US 911 system. Telco switches are hackable. And I submit to you that the 911 system is as life-and-death critical as it gets. Hasn't seemed to have been a problem so far, even though 911 systems *have* been hacked, subjected to denial of service attacks, and all the other problems they are subject to. Or do you think, it is possible to build ultra-reliable secure real-time communication channels in the Internet? Maybe.. It may be impossible to build ultra-reliable secure systems. On the other hand, remember that it's about *risk management*. Nuclear launch codes are one of the *very* few "zero failures acceptable" things we have. We accept that on the order of 1 out of every million airplane takeoffs ends badly. We accept that the power grid fails in scattered areas during the summer. We accept that doctors, drug interactions, and hospitals accidentally kill a number of patients every year. I don't see the whole class of Aleve/Naprosyn painkillers being pulled off the market, even though an amazing number of people die every year from gastric bleeding. We actually know almost all of what we need to build such systems. Now all we need is programmers that remember to actually CHECK that string lengths are in bounds. ;) Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
all we need is programmers that remember to actually CHECK that string lengths are in bounds. Lets hope they are X-Microsoft programmers, That should keep all us support staff busy and in secure jobs ;-) I know, Its Friday ! Jon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:35 PM To: Mahadevan Iyer Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:26:55 PDT, Mahadevan Iyer said: At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power systems. What do you think? At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use something like a telco switch to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public infrastructure like the US 911 system. Telco switches are hackable. And I submit to you that the 911 system is as life-and-death critical as it gets. Hasn't seemed to have been a problem so far, even though 911 systems *have* been hacked, subjected to denial of service attacks, and all the other problems they are subject to. Or do you think, it is possible to build ultra-reliable secure real-time communication channels in the Internet? Maybe.. It may be impossible to build ultra-reliable secure systems. On the other hand, remember that it's about *risk management*. Nuclear launch codes are one of the *very* few "zero failures acceptable" things we have. We accept that on the order of 1 out of every million airplane takeoffs ends badly. We accept that the power grid fails in scattered areas during the summer. We accept that doctors, drug interactions, and hospitals accidentally kill a number of patients every year. I don't see the whole class of Aleve/Naprosyn painkillers being pulled off the market, even though an amazing number of people die every year from gastric bleeding. We actually know almost all of what we need to build such systems. Now all we need is programmers that remember to actually CHECK that string lengths are in bounds. ;) Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
I believe that we are looking at a wireless solution here, and the justification for building alternate dimension networks could be difficult to justify unless we have an overcrowding problem on earth. That in turn would open up all sorts of other possibilities. You can see the advertisements now : "Moving into a different reality, don't end up in the Dungeon Dimensions, Talk to John Doe, you friendly neighbourhood inter-dimentional Realtor" However the Network Engineers that implemented it, would make a killing, They would be on the clock in several dimensions simultaneously, especially if you think that you can have different dimensions occupying the same physical space. this scenario presents interesting opportunities : 1. you could carry out a full days work by doing 1 hour in each of 8 realities, OR really bust the budget and 2. by working 8 hours in 8 different realities simultaneously, therefore achieving 64 hours work in one work day (8 hours) (1/3 of the time it takes for an orbital rotation of earth, assuming 24 hours is the time it takes,( I believe the completely accurate time is 23h 56m to one rotation)) and lets be honest here, how many Engineers do you know that work 8 hour days ? 3. based on the standard working model, in the course of one "normal" working day (8 hours), you could do your standard 40 hour week plus 24 hours overtime and take the rest of the week off to go hiking in the mountains. The added double whammy is that in the state of California, anything over 40 hours is time and a half, so the bank balance looks healthy too. The only possible problem is whether you can be considered to be in California and simultaneously in 7 other dimensions and still charge time and a half. The lawyers and politicians are going to have fun making a law for this work ethic. ah... Mr. President, welcome to quantum physics 101 ;- Jim *** My opinions are my own and do not represent the technical direction of 3Com or any of it's subsidiaries *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/08/2000 05:58:52 Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:52:25 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: why not consider all the dimentions, ever heard of polyfractal space ? Fabricating the router connections would be interesting WHat sort of crimping tool would it take to make a 2.75D connector stay on the cable? ;) att1.unk
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
At 8:49 AM +0200 8/4/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Not relevant. IPv6 will be exhausted by overly-generous allocation of address space, just like IPv4. I've already explained in the past why this must be so. In part, it comes from the subjective impression that any new address space is "more than we'll ever need" and the tendency to overallocate in consequence, until it's too late; this is probably the most common engineering mistake in IT history. Another reason why IPv6 is not nearly as large as it appears to be is that IP addresses are closely linked to routing, instead of being randomly assigned; and this routing imposes severe restrictions on how the address space can be used. Both issues are routinely and completely overlooked,... They have not been overlooked by those who have been working on IPv6 address allocation policy. Steve
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
At 8:36 AM +0200 8/4/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote: I think we'll see IP addressable toasters and washing machines just after we all switch from automobiles to hovercars and from telephones to Picturephones. According to predictions being made by futurists for the past few decades, all of these things are due to happen Real Soon Now. The mere fact that some predicted technologies never materialized does not mean that all predicted technologies will fail to materialize. Steve
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
They have not been overlooked by those who have been working on IPv6 address allocation policy. What's the solution? Hint: No policy of advance address allocation will help, and neither will any form of address-based routing, no matter how clever.
Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
--Original Message- -From: Dennis Glatting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the -conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the -fees. Big duh! ARIN ..still needs to delegate/admin the space.. costs will be incured. - -If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit -there is a -thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and -stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical -question is -whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically -(e.g., monthly) -drop coins in the ARIN fountain? what does the appliance have to do with a /32 or /28 ?? -Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the -allocation or use of -port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. Does IANA charge for port assignment numbers ??
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). -Original Message- From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Wasn't avoiding NAT one of the goal of IPv6? I recall a pretty big discussion here some time ago about NAT and IPv6. -Original Message- From: Rakers, Jason [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). -Original Message- From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many houses are there in the world! -Original Message- From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). -Original Message- From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Better question: How many households are there in the world on the Internet? -Original Message- From: Parkinson, Jonathan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many houses are there in the world! -Original Message- From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). -Original Message- From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
--Original Message- -From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM -To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - The household will perform NAT for -all devices -within (one street address can house many people, not just one). .. and lose out on e2e connectivity ?? imho, primary v6 address arch was to negate the NAT bottleneck..and of course v4 address exhaustion
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
"Rakers, Jason" wrote: When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). The factor in all this is cheap firewalls/routers. With these coming down in price they will be installed standard when asking for a cable internet connection, or such. Also these boxes, probably being the size of a phoneset would probably also include a DHCP server for addressing the various devices in the home, much like what is done for Sun's SunRay line of devices. If this does happen I just hope that they offer the option for expert users to configure the devices themselves. The price factor that will make these an option is arounf USD 100. Andre
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
From: Dennis Glatting [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 05:32:04 -0700 (PDT) I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. Well, who would pay for allocating a new service? It does not matter if it is 10 or 10 servers offering something on an allocated port. It is allocated. There is also no good way to get ports back, since how can you assure that there is no longer traffic on some port. Neither the servers or the clients can be in a sufficient way charged for the usage of a well-known port in order to acheive the same pressure as you can do with (real) IP numbers. ISPs can naturally charge you for open up traffic to and/or from a certain port, but that does not give the knowledge that you would require. If someone is running some acient protocol in his/her network using some well known port and would not be communicating it to the outside world, it would still make this port occupied without any money changing hands. Sadly enought I don't think money is the way to solve conservation of port space, we have to rely on good engineering decissions, and boy, does we know that these are not reliable ;) Port numbers are as they are and to some degree we have run into a couple of scaling issues with them. As allways, set a limit and we will (eventually) outrun it. Now, back to the elevators and their prime numbers! (Interesting Elevator Task Force) Cheers, Magnus
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announce list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
No, what will happen is one IPv6 prefix per household/car/whatever, and therefore no reason for NAT. Brian "Rakers, Jason" wrote: When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one).
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
"Rakers, Jason" wrote: When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). IMNSHO, NAT is evil. While most end-luser applications work "fine" with it, it does impose restrictions on what can be done as compared to possibilities in the end-to-end universe. *Designing* something to be NAT in a world that goes toward a larger address space is broken and should be avoided att all practical costs. I do sense that this has been discussed before and will now stop. -- Måns NilssonDNS Technichian +46 709 174 840 NIC-SE +46 8 545 85 707MN1334-RIPE
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis, I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I From the ARIN web site I found that the minimum allocation is a /20 and the fee for that is $2,500/year ( http://www.arin.net/regserv/feeschedule.html ). Larger allocations have higher charges but the price per address goes down quickly. I would think that most ISP have larger allocations than a /20. A /20 provides 128 /27 address blocks. That works out to $19.53/year per /27. You said that your ISP is charging you $20. per month. Not a bad markup! Interesting what happens when rationing starts. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! The IPv6 address blocks allocated by ARIN are much much larger, so the price per address for an ISP is considerably lower. Bob
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
"Rakers, Jason" wrote: When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). The factor in all this is cheap firewalls/routers. With these coming down in price they will be installed standard when asking for a cable internet connection, or such. Also these boxes, probably being the size of a phoneset would probably also include a DHCP server for addressing the various devices in the home, much like what is done for Sun's SunRay line of devices. If this does happen I just hope that they offer the option for expert users to configure the devices themselves. The price factor that will make these an option is arounf USD 100. Andre
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Rakers, Jason wrote: When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). Bad analogy, even assuming all parties involved agreed that NAT was a good thing (tm). Many don't and IPv6 was designed to alleviate addr space problems, not work around them (whcih is what NAT is). Using your analogy, consider that people do not have one single address -- One may have home, work, vacation house and POBox. They're all valid and you'll find me at all of them (Well, except work g). But not at the same time, and sometimes visitors need to be rerouted from one location to another. RL -- R A Lichtensteiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 781 276 4500 Could not open /usr/bin/fortune. Lid on cookie jar sealed
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
v6 address space works out to about 1500 address per sq mtr of the earth's surface... NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ? --Original Message- -From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM -To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many -houses are there -in the world! - --Original Message- -From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM -To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I -think we will see -a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household -(much like -today's street address). The household will perform NAT for -all devices -within (one street address can house many people, not just one). - -
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from a webpage, or a world-wide DHCP server for Amana ( and one for Maytag, etc.) to register a refrigerator. And easier administration should translate into lower cost.. :-) My apologies in advance for polluting the IETF announce list. Btw, did we ever find out how many people were on that elevator? :-) -Original Message- From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:51 AM To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announce list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
"Rakers, Jason" wrote: Better question: How many households are there in the world on the Internet? Wrong question. The correct question is how many should we plan for. Right now 12 billion people seems to be a reasoanble estimate - unthinkable for IPv4, but easily covered by IPv6. Brian
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Such a product is available already, check out : www.maxgate.net/product_3200.htm I believe the device does use NAT ( :- ) but there are other devices in the family, that do IPSEC. I am still waiting for mine to be delivered, sorry if I am a little wooly about it, I haven't had chance to play with it yet, but it looks promising. At the moment the cost is about $300 USD, but as Andre points out the price will drop eventually. Also I had believed that IPv6 had enough addresses for every person on planet Earth and then some. But here is an intresting question, Would the address be assigned to a person or a property, on the basis that if the person moved would the address go with them or stay with the house ? What happened if the house was destroyed or the person died, would the address be returned to the registry, from where it was issued, to be re-allocated to a new property or person ? Will we eventually get to the point where we are all as unique as our IPv6 addresses, and new born children are assigned an address automatically, when they are born ? Maybe george orwell and aldous huxley got it right ;- Jim ** This is my personal opinion only and does not represent the technical direction of 3Com or any subsidury. ** Andre-John Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/08/2000 15:41:52 Sent by: Andre-John Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Rakers, Jason" jrakers @ALLEGHENYENERGY.COM cc: "'Dennis Glatting'" dennis.glatting @SOFTWARE-MUNITIONS.COM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com) Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! "Rakers, Jason" wrote: When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). The factor in all this is cheap firewalls/routers. With these coming down in price they will be installed standard when asking for a cable internet connection, or such. Also these boxes, probably being the size of a phoneset would probably also include a DHCP server for addressing the various devices in the home, much like what is done for Sun's SunRay line of devices. If this does happen I just hope that they offer the option for expert users to configure the devices themselves. The price factor that will make these an option is arounf USD 100. Andre
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Why would internet-enable appliances necessarily have to incur a charge? Although internet-enabled, they could also be defined as 10. address within your LAN (a.k.a. home). They would be visible to the outside only through your personal server - for which you are already paying a charge. Whatever security you ran on your PC would protect you from someone, say, turning your heat up to around 90 degrees F while you were gone on vacation. Regards, Rodney H. Kay Department of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System Systems Manager Seattle, Washington -Original Message- From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 7:51 AM To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announce list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Vint, the ASO members don't support ICANN on a per block basis, in fact ICANN's Task Force on Funding (TFF) observed that the IP Address Registries operate on a non-profit business model from member fees and should foot 10% of ICANN's budget. (see http://www.icann.org/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.htm) If ICANN's budget grows the ASO's responsibility grows proportionally. If the IP Address Registries (ASO Members) are doing cost-recovery then its expected the price for membership will increase or the cost for a delegation will increase. It is reasonable to assume that an address maintance fee will eventually passed along to the consumer just to maintain the 10% ICANN maintance. I don't want to see IP Address space charges, no matter its version, induce a monthly charges on the end-user side. Just this year the ASO's 10% responsibility will amount to $428,000 USD. If you don't think that ICANN's budget will grow under stand tha ARIN's 2000-01 budget is 5.2M and ICANN's budget for 2000-01 is 5.0M If you want to keep ICANN out of your pocket, ensure they stay lean and focused on technical administration of Assigned Names and Numbers and not inflating its own self worth. I would prefer having ICANN set the ASO funding requirements in such a way that it did not encourage ASO members to pass on the ICANN maintance fees in a per assignment basis. In short Manageing ICANN's budget can have the largest impact on the costs of future IP Address Registry operations. I'd be happy to carry this conversation on in another forum, just let me know where that is. thanks, -rick On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, vinton g. cerf wrote: It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)?
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Well, there are 8 computers in my house, and I don't count future IP enabled appliances. At my work place (building take probably about 0.7 hectares or less and this only one site) more than 700 computers:-). In any case, my point is that we should consider 3rd dimension also:-) -Original Message- From: Dawson, Peter D [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! v6 address space works out to about 1500 address per sq mtr of the earth's surface... NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ? --Original Message- -From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM -To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many -houses are there -in the world! - --Original Message- -From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM -To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I -think we will see -a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household -(much like -today's street address). The household will perform NAT for -all devices -within (one street address can house many people, not just one). - -
FW: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
hmm... in Manahattan that may be more than one, in Silk Hope, North Carolina it is less than one -Original Message- From: Dawson, Peter D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! v6 address space works out to about 1500 address per sq mtr of the earth's surface... NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ? --Original Message- -From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM -To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many -houses are there -in the world! - --Original Message- -From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM -To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I -think we will see -a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household -(much like -today's street address). The household will perform NAT for -all devices -within (one street address can house many people, not just one). - -
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). make that an address *block* per household. The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). not likely - putting NAT in the path would make the household net nearly useless (because a lot of the things for which you want a household net imply assigning an external address to devices within your household) We are of course talking about IPv6 here - IPv4 doesn't have anywhere nearly enough address space to give every household a single routable address. And NATs make no sense at all in a world where you have plenty of address space. At best NAPTs trade off address bits for port number bits - and in IPv6 port number bits are the ones that are scarce. Keith
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
"Book, Robert" wrote: Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to manufacturers would be much easier to support Mmm...that's already there, isn't it? The low-order 64 bits he's talking about are things like Ethernet addresses, for use in IPv6 autoconfig. (We can't allocate blocks of actual IP addresses to manufacturers, of course, or the routers will go mad. I don't want to wake up in the middle of the night to find a zombie router, with its front panel glowing insanely, standing over me with a Cat5 garrotte and screaming, "Revenge!". :-) -- /=\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist || |eCal Corp. |If God had not given us duct tape, it would have| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|been necessary to invent it.| \=/
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
I would say 12G * 4 ( at least ), but still OK. Reasoning behind this is that I'd like to have real IP for each computer in the house, plus mobile IPs for everybody, plus appliances, plus hotels, planes, cars, trains, etc -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! "Rakers, Jason" wrote: Better question: How many households are there in the world on the Internet? Wrong question. The correct question is how many should we plan for. Right now 12 billion people seems to be a reasoanble estimate - unthinkable for IPv4, but easily covered by IPv6. Brian
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
At 12:57 PM -0400 8/3/00, Book, Robert wrote: Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from Good grief! This is the worst possible solution. We are allocating *addresses*, not serial numbers. a webpage, or a world-wide DHCP server for Amana ( and one for Maytag, etc.) I presume that you assume that all Amana appliances will be in the same topological part of the network and all Maytag appliances will be a different part of the topology. How do you suppose route aggregation will work with such an approach? to register a refrigerator. And easier administration should translate into lower cost.. :-) My apologies in advance for polluting the IETF announce list. Btw, did we ever find out how many people were on that elevator? :-) John Day
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
as long as we do not care about fragmentation of the routing space this idea is neat Scott --- Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from a webpage, or a world-wide DHCP server for Amana ( and one for Maytag, etc.) to register a refrigerator. And easier administration should translate into lower cost.. :-) My apologies in advance for polluting the IETF announce list. Btw, did we ever find out how many people were on that elevator? :-) -Original Message- From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:51 AM To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announce list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:57:49 EDT, "Book, Robert" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from a webpage, or a world-wide DHCP server for Amana ( and one for Maytag, etc.) to register a refrigerator. And easier administration should translate into You don't want to assign network addresses on a per-manufacturer basis. Network addresses have to be aggregable. That's why we have ARP because MAC addresses on an Ehternet are assigned per manufacturer. But that's OK, because IPv6 has ARP ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
The various proposals to burn IP addresses into devices are naive. IP addresses identify points in the network topology. Hence they need to be assigned according to topology. If you try to assign IP addresses in some other fashion, you immediately need something else to replace the IP address which is assigned according to network topology. And for various reasons that new thing will have a very similar structure to an IP address. (for reasons of efficiency, IP addresses are also sometimes used to name, or as parts of names for, lots of other things - including interfaces, hosts, and connection endpoints. but it's the use of an IP address to name a point in the network topology that drives their assignment.) yes, you can add a layer of indirection to the network so that a device has a constant 'virtual' IP address which gets forwarded to the 'real' IP address which indicates the current location of the device. mobile-ip does this, for example, and it's quite useful to be able to have a mobile device with a stable IP address. but then you still need a 'current location' address. you also need a home agent which sits on the net at the location corresponding to your stable IP address, and either forwards your traffic to the 'current location' address or issues a redirect to that address. if my toaster is going to be on the net, the last thing I want is for all of the traffic for that toaster to go to the toaster manufacturer's home agent just so it can get forwarded to my house. I don't want the toaster manufacturer to be able to see how often I'm checking on the status of my toast. nor do I want to have to pay the toaster manufacturer to get it to continue to route packets to my toaster. burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock their customers in to particular services. not my idea of a desirable state. personally, I'd rather have the address registries. Keith
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
NAT would definitely serve a purpose for those wishing to not pay a fee for Intert addresseable address space. It would seem though thatif one pays for Internet access this should in fact be included in the price. "Evstiounin, Mikhail" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't avoiding NAT one of the goal of IPv6? I recall a pretty bigdiscussion here some time ago about NAT and IPv6. -Original Message- From: Rakers, Jason [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices within (one street address can house many people, not just one). -Original Message- From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 ! AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions.I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh!! If we look at today's marketing hype and think for ward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain?Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model?Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. AT would d3efinetDo You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
why not consider all the dimentions, ever heard of polyfractal space ? (sorry couldn't resist it ;- ) Jim "Evstiounin, Mikhail" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/08/2000 19:33:50 Sent by: "Evstiounin, Mikhail" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Dawson, Peter D" Dawson.Peter @EMERYWORLD.COM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(Jim Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com) Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! Well, there are 8 computers in my house, and I don't count future IP enabled appliances. At my work place (building take probably about 0.7 hectares or less and this only one site) more than 700 computers:-). In any case, my point is that we should consider 3rd dimension also:-) -Original Message- From: Dawson, Peter D [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! v6 address space works out to about 1500 address per sq mtr of the earth's surface... NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ? --Original Message- -From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM -To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many -houses are there -in the world! - --Original Message- -From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM -To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - -When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I -think we will see -a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household -(much like -today's street address). The household will perform NAT for -all devices -within (one street address can house many people, not just one). - -
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency. Refrigerator's don't. NATs cause a lot more problems than the loss of transparency. see http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html Most people are going to buy products based on the functions they perform (utility), not on their architecture. If someone develops a nice household/Internet gateway that does something useful (and doesn't require a UNIX administrator), people will buy it, regardless of whether it performs some politically/religiously incorrect protocol transformations. true enough...but they will insist that the product work as advertised. and if households have NATs in them, the number of things that those products can do will be considerably reduced. hence the number of products available, and the utility of a household network connection, will also be reduced. And, if IPvX addresses cost money, a lot of households will pay money for devices that enable them to operate with only one IP address. true enough, at least if the addresses cost more than the NAT box. but if you have to have a NAT box then the money you spend is for the purpose of making your network less functional. personally, I'd rather get something useful for my money. folks who think this is a religious argument aren't paying attention. but the bottom line is that we need to make sure that a) IPv6 address blocks of reasonable size have near-zero cost b) NATs aren't part of IPv6 Keith
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote: [snip] burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock their customers in to particular services. not my idea of a desirable state. It might also be a good way for script kiddies to efficiently scan the Internet looking for a particular manufacturer's device to exploit a discovered security flaw, such as turning off a stove's gas pilot and turning on all burners. If that doesn't sound realistic, how about a cracker inside a manufacturer's systems doing the same; or how about a terrorist? It is reasonable to assume that HVAC systems will someday soon be controlled over the Internet by a maintenance firm (video surveillance systems already are controlled and monitored over the Internet). It may become possible, for example, to raise building temperatures across the lower Manhattan area and shut down most financial centers, at least for a short while.
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There is already a lot of work being done on the Interplanetary Internet problem. Vint Cerf has lead pioneering work with people at JPL on the problem. I don't remember the URL but it should be easy to find. The current achitecture (last I checked) was for basically independent networks on each planet with gateways at the planetary borders. There are some facinating problems that come up when you think about it. - --- Phil -Original Message- From: Dawson, Peter D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 3:06 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! good point... but I do wonder how the border edge router will handle a datagram with TTL approx 240 sec's ( i.e min time required for msg to pass between earth = mars) ? what about jitters, latency ,dropped packets, icmpv6 err msg well whatever --Original Message- -From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:50 PM -To: Dawson, Peter D -Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - - -peter, - -who said all the addresses were going to be used only on earth? - --r - -On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Dawson, Peter D wrote: - - v6 address space works out to about 1500 address - per sq mtr of the earth's surface... - NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ? - - --Original Message- - -From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] - -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM - -To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - - - - -Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many - -houses are there - -in the world! - - - --Original Message- - -From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] - -Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM - -To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! - - - - - -When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I - -think we will see - -a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household - -(much like - -today's street address). The household will perform NAT for - -all devices - -within (one street address can house many people, not just one). - - - - - - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBOYogWh8Cp2AdP9rUEQLV7ACfZqBq0j91GDO2DlQHKgb/efk+B8oAnijQ dtfdvl+svrtvy7FlxVQ1u6Ip =1QNv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: oh merde! blush Patrick F. and ICANN board error
At 09:38 PM 1/4/00 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: I carry a lot of ICANN data around in my head and I am generally pretty good at it. However my attention has been called to the fact that I screwed up on my association with Patrick as an ICANN board member. Following a few URL trails I see that he and Goeff Huston were IETF nominees but that ETSI and W3C placed their folk on the board and IETF would up with only Vint. For the record, there is a PSO in the middle of that. IETF, ETSI, ITU, and W3C (the members of the PSO) each nominated various and sundry for the three board seats alloted to the PSO, and nominees from ETSI, W3C, and IETF were selected. ITU was, er, displeased. Wiping red face. For all you talk about ICANN, if the PSO involvement escaped you, your face deserves to be red. I am well aware of the PSO and that aspect did not escape me.what did escape me (in part i suppose because I was in nepal from oct 13 to nov 6 and totally off net from roughly the 18th of oct to november 3 (trekking near everest)) was that nomination by IETF of Cerf, Falstrom and Huston was not tantamount to election. please see http://cookreport.com/neptibalb.shtml for short photo essay and satire (the masked dancing of the monks at the tengboche monastery reminded me of ICANN). The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml
