If you find a way to select paths in real networks using only virtual data,
we'd all be interested to hear it.
Try draft-guruprasad-addressless-internet-00.txt, and
the ECUMN'2000 paper on which it was based, at
http://affine.watson.ibm.com/tmp/vinet.pdf
The draft doesn't yet mention
Keith Moore writes:
| but I'm fairly convinced that we are *far* better off with a global
| name space for network attachment points, which are exposed and
| visible to hosts and applications, than we are with only locally
| scoped addresses visible to hosts and applications
Out of curiosity,
What are the differences (definitions) of v4 and v6?
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
--- Sean Doran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith Moore writes:
| but I'm fairly convinced that we are *far* better off with a global
| name space for network attachment points, which are exposed and
| visible to hosts and applications, than we are with only locally
| scoped addresses visible
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
They can't avoid it. They need to get their work done. They have no
way of getting registered addresses. They're told to use NAT by
organizations like ARIN, and so they do the only thing they can.
I have a hard time believing ARIN is telling people to use NAT, when
You know, concerns over global name spaces and architectural purity are
valid to the engineer/operator. But to Joe User who just got his first
cable modem and got rid of AOL, he just wants to connect his computer
to the Internet. Then he wants to share that connection with his kids'
At 11:25 AM 12/17/00 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
WG chair says "OK, the room is now over-full. Who are there people in the
doorway or outside who intend to work actively on drafts or forming the
charter for this group? I see seven hands up. Could fourteen people who
are currently sitting
From: "Perry E. Metzger" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Dec 2000 13:32:03 -0500
It certainly takes more. The amount of NAT equipment out there is
astonishing, and as I said at the plenary, people are starting to pay
Real Money (as in millions a year) in large organizations to keep the
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:44:18 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran)
| It's already happening. Try running IPSec from one 10 network to
| another 10 network. Much pain.
Surely the "much pain" is because, as Melinda Shore indicates,
some "anti-NAT fanatics"
I find it amusing that this debate on how to handle "congestion" at IETF
meetings mirrors the technical debate on congestion in the Internet. The
two sides still seem to be "more bandwidth" or "apply QOS".
Bob
At 12/18/00 01:07 PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that the only reason
to do NAT is because of the address space problem. My concern is that
it may turn out that some transport/routing people may conclude that we
may also need to do NAT to
At 12/18/00 01:07 PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that the only reason
to do NAT is because of the address space problem. My concern is that
it may turn out that some transport/routing people may conclude that we
may also need to do NAT to
What is technically wrong with v6 that isn't already technically wrong
with v4?
Thank you, Perry, you've put it in a nutshell.
Noel
Excellent. We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.
Now until we have a concrete design proposal for a perfect world, can
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be *awfully* convenient if we declare up front that something
is the "end point identifier" (i.e., "who"), and is forever exempt from
being changed by intermediate routing entities, and if necessary,
something is else the routing component
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
My concern is that it may turn out that some transport/routing people
may conclude that we may also need to do NAT to solve the routing
problem. In which case, we're back to where we started.
I'd feel a lot better if we could get key
At 14:02 18/12/2000 +1030, Andrew Rutherford wrote:
At 09:49 -0500 15/12/00, John C Klensin wrote:
I don't think company names on badges are harmful, and they do
help us identify each other (otherwise, we could carry the
principle to the limits and leave the names off too, replacing
them with
I know, this is completely silly, but the subscription email address I
gave out previously is not working.
The correct subscription and list information is as follows:
List name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While the service is run by majordomo, the
Excellent. We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.
unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset. e.g. the larger
address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as
the increasing number of routes.
and i am not 'taunting' but trying to see
wait for the Assured Seating (AS) Per Hotel Behavior (PHB) with
multiple drop precedence levels badges are marked on ingress
to the room based on willingness to work... the chair drops people
marked "dead weight" first as the room fills in order to come
up with another diffserv-related
At 13:44 15/12/00, Sean Doran wrote:
Surely the "much pain" is because, as Melinda Shore indicates,
some "anti-NAT fanatics" cannot understand the distinction
between "who" and "where"?
I fancy that I know one or two things about ESP
and AH. Your analysis is Wrong. The pain has
At 17:39 18/12/00, John Collis wrote:
This is true. To do this though really requires some re-architecting
of the current Internet model, based on "first principles".
Yes.
In particular, there is not a sufficient "name space" for what we are
often currently trying to do - hence the
If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
bound to domain names.
Donald
From: RJ Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:45:43 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The point of individuality is a good one. But this should
be the choice of the person. They can write whatever they
choose for the company. For many of us it is informative.
At 02:02 PM 12/18/2000 +1030, Andrew Rutherford wrote:
At 09:49 -0500 15/12/00, John C Klensin wrote:
I don't think
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:54:47 EST, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
bound to domain names.
I admit to not having read the DNSSEC RFCs. I however do hope that they
are immune to the same sort of attacks against SSL
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Matthew Goldman wrote:
I also disagree with you regarding hotel rates. Pre-negotiated block rates
for meetings are around the same price as we paid in San Diego for a similar
type of hotel (clearly, Vegas hotels are both much better than and much
worse than the Sheraton
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 they grow the stuff. It is also very hard to find good
quality food (but is awash in cheap buffets).
Sorry, but I'd prefer Vegas vs. not
It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a meeting fee, pay to
travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be turned-away.
In addition, turning away people who wish to attend seems counter to the
IETF spirit.
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL
It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a meeting fee, pay to
travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be turned-away.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
it makes a great deal of sense if the purpose of the meeting is to get
technical work done, rather
DNSSEC is still evolving, it isn't deployed yet, and the right mailing
lists to discuss it are the DNSEXT and DNSOP working groups. However,
to give a really brief answer, if your local revolver is unwilling to
do the full blown DNSSEC cryptography and just wants to trust that the
local
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:35:38PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
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 they grow the stuff. It is also very hard to find good
quality food (but
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 08:46:31PM -0800, Matthew Goldman wrote:
It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a meeting fee, pay to
travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be turned-away.
In addition, turning away people who wish to attend seems counter to the
IETF
This suggestion will I hope generate much heated discussion. We could
always ask the working group chairs to identify the contributing
members. Those who submit Internet-Drafts can also be added to the
list. These members like the WG Chairs, ADs, ... can have stickers
added to their badges.
From: Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
part of the characteristics of today's Internet is that its is
flattening out. The concept of hierarchical connectivity with
'upstreams' and 'downstreams' ... as I understand the current
deployment plan there are TLAs and sub TLAs,
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:54:47 -0500
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
bound to domain names.
I disagree. IPSEC is about Security at the IP layer, and that means we
need a security association which is
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Fisk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gateways that surreptitiously modify packets can break ANY end-to-end
protocol no matter what layer it's at. Assume that we sacrifice IP
addresses as not necessarily end-to-end. Fine, there are
35 matches
Mail list logo
