Noel Chiappa wrote:
I persist in thinking that those 32-bit names are continuing their evolution
into local-scope names, with translation at naming region boundaries. How can
we improve that - reduce the brittleness of the middleboxes you refer to, by
making their data more visible (and thus
From: cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com
the emergent complex dynamical system we call the internet ... which is
almost completely zero compliant to the e2e principle. Not that e2e is
the wrong principle, but ipv4 could not support it as of 10+ years ago.
Hence, nearly every
On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:52 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
On the technical side, I believe that there was a general belief
in 1993 that we would be able to map out a unified, clear, transition
strategy for IPv6 and give simple advice about it.
John is correct in terms of belief
--On Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:28 -0400 Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net wrote:
...
I *really* want to make sure that my CEO always gets the same
address, and want him to be assigned specific DNS servers and
use a certain gateway. The folk who manage the DHCP are the
Internal Services
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:15 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:28 -0400 Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net
wrote:
...
It turns out that as soon as you envisage a network in which
some nodes only support 32 bit addresses and other nodes
can't get a globally
On 05/31/2013 09:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It was more complicated. I was actually running a team that ran site
network ops at the time, and (since DHCP was not yet deployable),
IPv4 was then a serious nuisance to manage, compared say to Novell
Netware and, even, Appletalk. There were good
Doug Barton wrote:
Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
dumb devices that only need to know their network and gateway to be
happy.
Wrong.
Even at that time and even on small end user
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
early days. In
Masataka,
On 6/1/13 6:51 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
dumb devices that only need to know their network and gateway to be
Arturo Servin wrote:
Even at that time and even on small end user LANs, it is
better to let the gateway manage the address configuration
state in centralized fashion than to have, so called, SLAAC,
which is full of address configuration state, which is
maintained in fully distributed manner
No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
the same IP to two or three different hosts. It was a nightmare.
With IPX, AT address assignment was automatic. No DHCP in those old
times.
Kind of.
Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
was not as important as a central port to give IP address. So both
solutions would seem useful to me at that time (as I said I
Arturo Servin wrote:
No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
the same IP to two or three different hosts.
So, it's like HOSTS.TXT.
It was a nightmare.
Yes, it was.
With IPX, AT
I was working on TCP/IP, Novell and AppleTalk nets in the mid 90s and
as network engineers we hated to maintain a database of static IP
addresses for users, and we loved how AT for example was totally
automatic (IPX was in the middle because we also hated the long addresses).
But any how, I
to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute
minimal change and cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from
the integer rental monopoly, flip a switch or two, and get 96
more bits no magic. 15 years later, dhcp is still a cf, i
have to run
Brian,
I really need to stop posting to this thread -- I have other
things to do and I don't believe the conversation is leading to
anything actionable. Second-guessing is fairly useless at this
point and there are at least a few things that we know in
retrospect that we couldn't have known in
On Jun 1, 2013 11:52 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Brian,
I really need to stop posting to this thread -- I have other
things to do and I don't believe the conversation is leading to
anything actionable. Second-guessing is fairly useless at this
point and there are at least a
Arturo Servin wrote:
Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
was not as important as a central port to give IP address.
A merit to have the central server is that you don't have to
cb.list6 wrote:
I think there is something here that is interesting, and that is the
interplay between paper design, evolution, and ultimately the emergent
complex dynamical system we call the internet ... which is almost
completely zero compliant to the e2e principle. Not that e2e is the
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly,
flip a switch
amen! :)
On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get
On May 31, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get
Warren Kumari wrote:
Unfortunately the was a bad case of creeping featuritis and we got:
A new, and unfortunately very complex way of resolving L2 addresses.
You may use ARP (and DHCP) with IPv6.
Extension headers that make it so you cannot actually forward
packets in modern hardware
(
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute
minimal change and cost
On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
wrote:
rant
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
out of ipv6. the end user, and the op
John C Klensin wrote:
Similarly, various applications folks within the IETF have
pointed out repeatedly that any approach that assigns multiple
addresses, associated with different networks and different
policies and properties, either requires the applications to
understand those policies,
26 matches
Mail list logo
