> From: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [NAT's] shouldn't have any effect on the *number* of [address]
>> blocks (i.e. things which can potentially produce global routing table
>> entries).
>> ... So the number of distinct "local areas" is still the same, yes?
>> And
At 12/16/00 10:02 PM -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > There are strong indications that NAT is one factor behind this part of
> > the BGP table.
>
>I'm afraid I'm missing the logic here. As you point out below, NAT's may have
>caused people
the fact that IPv* doesn't distinguish between who and where does
cause some problems, but does not significantly impact the ability
to route IPv* packets. even if you free IP addresses from any kind
of role as host identity (which IMHO would be a good thing except that
nobody has produced a sa
> We will be holding an IPS interim meeting on January 16th and 17th.
> The meeting will be held at the Grosvenor Resort, Lake Buena Vista,
> Orlando, Florida.
> This is the same hotel that the T10 meetings are being held at.
>
> The agenda will be forthcoming sometime this week, as will more
>
> From: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There are strong indications that NAT is one factor behind this part of
> the BGP table.
I'm afraid I'm missing the logic here. As you point out below, NAT's may have
caused people to use *smaller* blocks of the global address space:
>
I looked again. Perry Metzger still writes:
| > So, I have to wonder, why is it that they have no option?
|
| Maybe because I hear from folks like you and others that you're
| ideologically opposed to deploying v6 instead of against it for
| technical reasons?
Wait, it's because of *me* that IP
Perry Metzger writes:
| Maybe because I hear from folks like you and others that you're
| ideologically opposed to deploying v6 instead of against it for
| technical reasons?
You have never heard this from me.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you have heard this from others
speaking about me. T
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you're ideologically opposed to deploying v6 instead of against it for
> technical reasons?
Ah, *that's* what's wrong with IPv6 - it doesn't pay enough attention to
control of the means of production by the workers.
And here I was, al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran) writes:
> I should have waited until Perry had spoken, because now that he has
> pointed out the extreme cost of NAT, I have seen the light!
>
> NATs are expensive. They have gross side-effects. Even Noel Chiappa,
> my guru, says that they are an architectural ha
At 9:32 PM -0500 12/13/00, Daniel Senie wrote:
> I am starting to wonder if we're going to have to hold the meetings
> primarily in Las Vegas.
I fervently hope not. Las Vegas is the tobacco smoking capital of
the U.S. -- higher rates than anywhere else in the country, including
areas where
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Henning G. Schulzrinne wrote:
> Then, there's always the Scout Jamboree option: build an Internet tent
> city. I'd imagine Burning Man has more attendees than the IETF and it
> seems to draw some of the same crowd.
Interop tried this at Vegas shows from, what, '96 through '9
11 matches
Mail list logo
