Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right? So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a smooth function from hostname-ipaddr-routing. No. Not just no, but hell no at the asserted communativity there, Barry. That's not even Wrong... And that's the point. DNS to IP is in no way a smooth function. Hell no, for many networks. It's only true for the boringest customers. Try actual enterprise endpoints, or service providers. IP to Routing is not smooth at predictable scales. Yes, it's in blocks, but a top-down view is at best fractal discontinuity. IP to routing is smoother in IPv6 but as routing has two components - physical location and net path - was made smoother in one only ( net path, and to the degree that's smooth in physical location by accident...). George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Re: 100.100.0.0/24
On 07/10/2012 00:34, Randy Bush wrote: ipv6 route 2001:DB8:0:DEAD:BEEF::1/128 Null0 plug: rfc . 100::/64 is reserved for this purpose. Nick
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information, no? It has occurred to me that the name on my shirt's tag contains some structured information. That doesn't make it particularly well suited for use as a computer network routing key. Or suited at all. On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: you can take a new idea and run with it a bit, or just resist it right from the start. Intentionally crashing the moon into the earth is a new idea. How far should we run with it before concluding that it not only isn't a very good one, considering it hasn't taught us anything we didn't already know? Van Jacobson had a similar observation vis a vis TCP and PPP header compression, why keep sending the same bits back and forth over a PPP link for example? Why not just an encapsulation which says same as previous? Now, how can that be generalized? By observing that within a restricted subset of a problem domain there may be usable techniques that aren't portable to the broader problem domain. This is not news, and your comments have not bounded a subset of the routing problem domain in a way that would make a discussion of names as routing keys interesting. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a single default external route. So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to BGP in some sense. I suppose one question is how do we discover non-existant hostnames but we have strong analogues to that at the ICMP level already, host unreachable etc, just another kind of error feedback. But I'll agree that begs some thought. As I said, the proposal was originally offered by me to a bunch of young hackers in Singapore for the purpose of stimulating discussion. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: names are not numbers, was IPv4 address length technical design
Back in the 80s when DNS was a fairly new idea and things like Google were way in the future I remember suggesting on the TCP-IP list that people grab a phone number they owned as a domain name and add first_last as a mailbox so we could leverage the international phone directory system to find each other. For example something like barry_sh...@0016176403067.com (maybe insert a letter, all-digits wasn't allowed back then.) I guess that sort of idea was eventually incorporated into telephone number mapping but not clear how successful that is or if the intent is really the same. I think there were other analogues? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping But the idea has come up. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a single default external route. So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to BGP in some sense. LISP DDT uses a lookup to determine EID location.
Typical additional latency for CGN?
Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average. There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
I think you've confused CGN with CDN. On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, George Herbert wrote: Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average. There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average. There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos Huh? I had presumed that CGN was Carrier Grade NAT, not a proxy service. Help me understand. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
Or maybe SDN ? So many acronyms to choose from On Oct 7, 2012 5:31 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: I think you've confused CGN with CDN. On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, George Herbert wrote: Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average. There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com --**--**-- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/**pgphttp://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgpfor PGP public key_
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
Sorry, at a conference and not paying enough attention to email. My bad. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average. There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos Huh? I had presumed that CGN was Carrier Grade NAT, not a proxy service. Help me understand. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full load. (gigs and gigs) . CGN does not meaningfully add latency. CGN is not enough of a factor to impact happy eyeballs in a way that improves ipv6 use. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Most mobile providers have been doing what is commonly called cgn for 5 to 10 years. CGN is not a new concept or implementation for mobile. CB Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos
RE: IPv4 address length technical design
Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a single default external route. So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to BGP in some sense. LISP DDT uses a lookup to determine EID location. We operate one of the DDT roots, and yes the difference is that LISP uses an on-demand pull mechanism, where the route is looked up and then cached until it ages out from inactivity. BGP pushes every route to peers and everyone running BGP pays a hardware tax for carrying each and every route. (See Bill Herrin's work at http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html) DDT provides a scalable, distributed database similar to DNS for looking up prefixes in LISP mapping servers.
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
- Original Message - From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com Well, George, you can take a new idea and run with it a bit, or just resist it right from the start. We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right? So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a smooth function from hostname-ipaddr-routing. Ah. *This* is where you fell off the horse. Nope; the first one isn't smooth; it's *completely arbitrary*. The mapping is, in fact, DNS's raison d'etre. The second one has a relatively smooth mapping *at any given point in time*, but you can't fit a function to that; it is prone also to arbitrary changes over time. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
Of all the problems CGN creates, I would think that latency is in the noise compared to the other issues. Owen On Oct 7, 2012, at 1:56 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its bandwidth. Latency problems with the CGNs were less than the main websites' latency problems, on the average. There were days that was not true, and days we had to re-re-re-reset the CGN contents, and the day the @#$#@$% game programmers screwed up the CGN calls, but on the whole it was among the least performance limiting / impeding features of the sites in question. -george On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Thanks, Tom -- Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/conference http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my videos -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
On Oct 7, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote: Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes. Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full load. (gigs and gigs) . CGN does not meaningfully add latency. CGN is not enough of a factor to impact happy eyeballs in a way that improves ipv6 use. I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have measurements from early-world deployments. Most mobile providers have been doing what is commonly called cgn for 5 to 10 years. CGN is not a new concept or implementation for mobile. True, but, as we have discussed before, mobile users, especially in the US, have dramatically lowered expectations of internet access from their mobile devices vs. what they expect from a household ISP. We expect half the services we want to be crippled by mobile carriers because they don't like competition. We file lawsuits when that happens on our terrestrial connections. Owen
Re: Typical additional latency for CGN?
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Owen DeLong wrote: Most mobile providers have been doing what is commonly called cgn for 5 to 10 years. CGN is not a new concept or implementation for mobile. True, but, as we have discussed before, mobile users, especially in the US, have dramatically lowered expectations of internet access from their mobile devices vs. what they expect from a household ISP. Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed ATT mobile is blocking ssh (outgoing 22/tcp) connections? AFAIK, ATT mobile does CGN. It's puzzling that they'd block outgoing ssh when there have been multiple ssh clients in the Apple app store for years. I used to be able to ssh from my ATT phone. I found recently, the packets don't get to the server unless I VPN from the phone first (or am on wifi, not relying on ATT for IP). -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: IPv6 Ignorance
Or just use their IP address as a useful universal identifier, which is kind of the point of V6. Whether you can be routed to isn't the point. It's that, if/when you can, there is an address, and it's easy to assign/divine, that you can be reached at, is. -Original Message- From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:17 PM To: John R. Levine; George Herbert Cc: Tomas L. Byrnes; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance My customer the Dark Matter local galaxy group beg to disagree; just because you cannot see them does not mean that you cannot feel them gravitationally. Or route to them. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: You won't have enough addresses for Dark Matter, Neutrinos, etc. Atoms wind up using up about 63 bits (2^10^82) based on the current SWAG. The missing mass is 84% of the universe. Fortunately, until we find it, it doesn't need addresses. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:30 PM To: John Levine Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Ignorance In technology, not much. But I'd be pretty surprised if the laws of arithmetic were to change, or if we were to find it useful to assign IP addresses to objects smaller than a single atom. we assign them /64s Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a single default external route. So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to BGP in some sense. There's no party in the neighborhood you're searching. Turn it upside down, on the other hand, and you end up somewhere like TRRP. http://bill.herrin.us/network/trrp.html Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
