In this case the benefit to running NAT on my home network is that it saves
me $50 per month in ISP fees, means I have wireless service to the whole
house and means that guests can easily connect.
one immediate benefit to my running IPv6 on my home network is that I
can access any of my machine
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I agree, but that opportunity may be to enhance NAT
> rather than throw
> > it away (you state something similar in your conclusion).
>
> As an engineer, the right thing to do is to transition away
> from NAT (along with IPv4), so that eve
Keith Moore writes:
> don't think upgrade; think coexistence.
How do IPv4 and IPv6 coexist? Like ASCII and EBCDIC, perhaps?
> As an engineer, the right thing to do is to transition away from NAT
> (along with IPv4), so that eventually it can be discarded.
I'm not aware of a smooth transition o
This is reasonable, but there is no realistic path to ipv6 that the
known world can reasonably be expected to follow.
That's because people keep thinking that there needs to be a path from
IPv4 to IPv6 that makes sense for all applications. No such path
exists, because applications vary
Keith Moore writes:
> and at some delta-T in the future, some things will be different. it
> might (or might not) be that lots more hosts run v6, it might (or might
> not) be that NATs are discredited, it might (or might not) be that the
> Internet mostly exists to connect walled gardens.
Probabl
Keith Moore writes:
> NAT is a dead end. If the Internet does not develop a way to obsolete
> NAT, the Internet will die.
I hardly think so, but in any case, the solution is pretty simple:
give out IP addresses for free, instead of charging an arm and a leg
for anything other than a single addre
Scott Leibrand writes:
> NAT (plus CIDR) was the short-term solution, and is realistic as a
> medium-term solution. In the long term, though, I don't think it will be
> the only solution.
It will be if ISPs continue to charge for extra IP addresses, as they
probably always will.
> And if someda
John, everyone,
I think it's fair to say that the IAB has "heard the concern"
at this point -- about the net neutrality issue, and the desire
to see some concrete IAB action.
I've also seen a fair bit of discussion about what an appropriate
stance *is*, and whether or how to express it as a use
This stuff will be on the web RSN. I'll post an announcement when available.
Susan
At 03:15 PM 3/27/2006, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
David Clark's presentation on Tuesday night at the social was great
- I'm trying to find a reasonable URL for the slides; I HAVE found
them in the 1992 IETF Proceed
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:11:18PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> >>>Your long term view is irrelevant if you are unable to meet short term
> >>>challenges.
> >>very true. but at the same time, it's not enough to meet short term
> >>challenges without providing a path to something that is sustainabl
So the real question is: Given NAT, what are the best
solutions to the long term challenges?
A protocol that would be only v4 with more bits in the first place, with
routers / NAT boxes that would pad/unpad extra zeroes (also including
extra TBD fields). As this would be 100% compatible with v4
David Clark's presentation on Tuesday night at the social was great - I'm
trying to find a reasonable URL for the slides; I HAVE found them in the
1992 IETF Proceedings for the summer meeting, but they are scanned (not
actually slides), and were printed at six slides per page, (so, they are
ver
> Austin Schutz wrote
> the ipv6 vs. NAT battle is over in the marketplace.
Especially now that the size of the routing table is not a problem
anymore.
> So the real question is: Given NAT, what are the best
> solutions to the long term challenges?
A protocol that would be only v4 with more bit
On Mon Mar 27 22:51:35 2006, Austin Schutz wrote:
NAT is a done deal. It's well supported at network edges. It solves
the addressing issue, which was what the market wanted. It voted
for NAT with
dollars and time. It is the long term solution - not because it is
better, but
because it
Your long term view is irrelevant if you are unable to meet short term
challenges.
very true. but at the same time, it's not enough to meet short term
challenges without providing a path to something that is sustainable in
the long term.
This is reasonable, but there is no realistic
On 03/27/06 at 1:51pm -0800, Austin Schutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is reasonable, but there is no realistic path to ipv6 that the
> known world can reasonably be expected to follow.
I think a good number of exclusively-IPv4-using* realists (like myself)
will disagree with you here
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:16:57PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > maybe this is because "protocol purity zealots" take a long
> > > term view and want to preserve the flexibility of the net
> > > "market" to continue to grow and support new applications,
> > > whereas the NAT vendors are just e
> > > > maybe this is because "protocol purity zealots" take a long term
> > > > view and want to preserve the flexibility of the net "market" to
> > > > continue to grow and support new applications, whereas the NAT
> > > > vendors are just eating their seed corn.
> > >
> > > Your long term vi
OK, it is an intersubjective truth accepted throughout the IETF that a
decade is far to long for deployment of DNSSEC.
It is an empirical fact that this is four years longer than it need have
been. Deployment would have taken place in the .com zone 2002 if the
necessary changes to the specificatio
On 03/27/06 at 11:38am -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> People can dispute opinions but not facts. The fact is that it has taken far
> too long to deploy DNSSEC.
Just a nit, as I can't really disagree with your assertion (nor can I
necessarily agree with it, as I haven't
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > maybe this is because "protocol purity zealots" take a long term
> > > view and want to preserve the flexibility of the net "market" to
> > > continue to grow and support new applications, whereas the NAT
> > > vendors are just eating their
> > > the NAT vendors are just eating their seed corn.
> >
> > Your long term view is irrelevant if you are unable to meet short term
> > challenges.
>
> very true. but at the same time, it's not enough to meet short term
> challenges without providing a path to something that is sustain
> > maybe this is because "protocol purity zealots" take a long
> > term view and want to preserve the flexibility of the net
> > "market" to continue to grow and support new applications,
> > whereas the NAT vendors are just eating their seed corn.
>
> Your long term view is irrelevant if you
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't know how this would work, but if it could be made to
> work, that might be very helpful.
It can work if the objective is to develop an interoperable architecture for
NAT.
It is not going to work if the objective is to explain to NAT
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to
> realize that
> > Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes because
> > they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
> consumers want to
> > buy them.
>
> may
Dave Crocker wrote:
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)
This is an interesting suggestion.
Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on
hallways discussions, during the rest of
> Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize that
> Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes because they
> think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because consumers want to buy
> them.
maybe this is because "protocol purity zealots" take a long term view
and
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The obvious way to deploy IPv6 is to leverage
> the NAT infrastructure.
Indeed.
> Evangelize to the major providers of NAT (Cisco,
> Netgear, Microsoft, Belkin...)
I will point out that we have had the beginning of a solution for ages
with 6to4. Unfortunately, t
I meant to chat with John privately (sorry!) after seeing his concerns a
couple of weeks ago.
I think we are conflating several good ideas in ways that are not helpful,
so teasing them apart might help.
Specifically, distinguishing between
- presentations of proposed new work (something like
I do not like the idea of adding yet another area where the ISOC gets into
the business of competing with IETF participants. The number of people who
make their living from giving training is probably much larger than the
number of people who make their living providing registry services.
I sugges
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Trying to devise ever more elaborate NAT traversal mechanisms
> that include sending keep-alives every few seconds and
> various "let's try this and then that" algorithms clearly
> don't scale if we want to get to consumer-grade reliabil
I think Henning and I are saying the same thing (he's just saying it
better).
From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trying to devise ever more elaborate NAT traversal mechanisms that include
sending keep-alives every few seconds and various "let's try this and then
that" algorithms
For what it's worth, this approach seemed to work reasonably well for
the SIP P2P BOF + ad-hoc (or "interim") meeting. The former was on
Tuesday, the latter on Friday afternoon.
Dave Crocker wrote:
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just
Traditionally, it was sufficient for the IETF to publish an RFC
specifying requirements or behavior; the purchasing process, through
RFIs and RFPs, then cited the long list of RFCs, essentially creating
the protocol police force that the IETF doesn't have.
That list-of-RFC-numbers approach is
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)
This is an interesting suggestion.
Any meeting that is early in the week gets the benefit of follow-on hallways
discussions, during the rest of the week. However BO
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> > of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> > in Eu
--On Monday, 27 March, 2006 09:31 -0500 Edward Lewis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But to get back to the point at the top of this side-bar, the
> mass gatherings for the IETF are done for cross-area review.
Ok, we disagree about the believe that cross-area review is the
only reason for holding
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
> in March 1993
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget imp
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
...
Understood, but you are fortunate to find cheap airfares from where
you happen to live.
At 15:00 -0500 3/25/06, John C Klensin wrote:
Ed, although I don't remember seeing you there, I have a nervous
feeling that I know which WG you are referring to and who said
(roughly, although I don't recall "don't participate") those
words early in the session. Whether that feeling is correct
On 3/27/06 6:45 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My apologies for not being clearer - my intention was not to criticize WG or
> IAB actions in the past, but to point out that we are now in an escalating
> game of whack-a-mole with our applications as the moles that NATs and FWs
>
Dear All,
My apologies for not being clearer - my intention was not to criticize WG or
IAB actions in the past, but to point out that we are now in an escalating
game of whack-a-mole with our applications as the moles that NATs and FWs
are finding new ways to frustrate.
The security guys hav
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
...
Understood
Excuse front-posting but this will be short.
The EDU team discussed this very issue with the IAOC
in Dallas. There will be a draft revised charter for EDU
out for comment soon, but the short version is that (for
the reasons John gives) EDU will stick to classes aimed
at the IETF's own functioning
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
...
Understood, but you are fortunate to
...
I guess I was just wishing out loud when I said maybe the
meeting fee could trend down instead of up. I would be happy
if the IETF had more control over the meetings
We have complete control since December 15, 2005.
so the fees
were stable,
The fees have to cover our costs. It would be
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in
the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ray,
I think our goal is to not lose essential participants from the IETF due
to clashes. In fact that's why we want to schedule several years out, so
as to make it easier for many other organizations t
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Protocol for carrying Authentication
for Network Access WG to consider the following document:
- 'PANA Framework '
as an Informational RFC
I read the PANA framework document on the plane.
I think there are a numb
Andy,
As I hope everybody knows, about 60% of the IASA budget
comes from meeting fees, and we must make enough surplus on
the meetings to fund the secretariat. So, if we did
decide to change the nature of any of our meetings, we'd
really have to understand the budget implications. That being
said
51 matches
Mail list logo
