On 2010-05-30 18:49, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So we need to extend the UPNP protocol so that when the local NAT box
receives a request to open up an external port, it relays the request
to the carrier NAT.
That's like msdp multicast state, who is going to allow you to
instantiate it in
You articulated the view from my knothole. Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:29 AM
To: David Conrad
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN
snip
So we need to extend the UPNP protocol so that when the local NAT box
receives a request to open up an external port, it relays the request
to the carrier NAT.
Or we could do what we did last time and pretend that nobody will
deploy carrier grade NAT if we don't specify a way that it can work
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
paf wrote:
It all works pretty well if the client have IPv4 and IPv6
_AND_ both works. But to some degree the functionality and
user experience goes down if either of IPv4 or IPv6 have
problems.
Same is
It is a feature that should be part of the Internet base protocol
stack. It is bad enough having to work out which RFCs matter and which
should be ignored. Knowing that you have to search out to various
other organizations to find secret sauce to make it work is a recipe
for chaos.
Its bad enough
On 31 May 2010, at 02:49, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Or we could do what we did last time and pretend that nobody will
deploy carrier grade NAT if we don't specify a way that it can work
without pain.
Well, I'd be interested to know what your plan is. Do you think we should use
DNS for
In message eef83942-7b6d-4169-a7e2-f51306182...@cisco.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat
rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
On 31 maj 2010, at 03.39, Mark Andrews wrote:
And have any of those that say this tried:
1) tried dual stack
2) tried IPv6 only through NAT64 (NAT-PT)
with a sample
On 31 maj 2010, at 08.03, Mark Andrews wrote:
MTAs should never search. MX records are absolute (explict or
implicit).
Agree.
MSAs should only search to qualify unqualified domains in user
submitted data.
I agree with this as well.
These are just two details that have not been clear in
In message 6e881f81-991d-4e98-932c-65cb49b02...@cisco.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat
rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
On 31 maj 2010, at 08.03, Mark Andrews wrote:
MTAs should never search. MX records are absolute (explict or
implicit).
Agree.
MSAs should only search to qualify unqualified
Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Right, yes, I didn't see it from that standpoint. However UPnP
can of course be substituted by NAT-PMP/PCP or something else
that doesn't have the same discovery problem, and ISP-level NATs
will no longer be a Problem for clients needing incoming
connections even
paf wrote:
It all works pretty well if the client have IPv4 and IPv6
_AND_ both works. But to some degree the functionality and
user experience goes down if either of IPv4 or IPv6 have
problems.
Same is true for a host with two IPv4 addresses and either of
the IPv4 addresses have problems.
On 05/31/2010 03:49 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So we need to extend the UPNP protocol so that when the local NAT box
receives a request to open up an external port, it relays the request
to the carrier NAT.
So what are you waiting for? Go ahead, read http://upnp.org, find the
relevant
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= p...@cisco.com
Messier than what I think many people think. Including me (and I
thought I had quite good overview of how it worked).
The difference between theory and practise is even bigger in practise than
it is in theory.
-- Our
On 31 maj 2010, at 19.35, Noel Chiappa wrote:
The difference between theory and practise is even bigger in practise than
it is in theory.
-- Our very own S. Crocker
I have for years said In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice, but in practice there is.
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The problem can be solved by carefully designing connection
establishment protocols to support multiple addresses of a
host, which means no solution exists at the connectionless
layer of IP.
Modified TCP, which send multiple SYN to several addresses
of a peer
On 28 maj 2010, at 21.39, Jari Arkko wrote:
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack (full
stop).
Unfortunately on applications layer I do not see enough operational
experience/best practice/actual implementations that handle this in a very good
way. The number
Patrik,
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack (full stop).
Unfortunately on applications layer I do not see enough operational experience/best practice/actual implementations that handle this in a very good way.
There are issues, of
On 28 May 2010, at 17:39, David Conrad wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Consider bittorrent. Bittorrent clients generally can run behind NAT, but in
that case they have to be on the same ethernet as the NATbox, so it's a safe
bet that the bittorrent USER has a real
On 05/30/2010 04:44 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
BitTorrent is popular, yes. People at home *are* behind NAT boxes, with all
the usual pain that implies *. It's just that BitTorrent, being a
straightforward TCP protocol with no embedded payload addresses **, can operate
behind NATs, and
On 30 May 2010, at 16:02, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
On 05/30/2010 04:44 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
BitTorrent is popular, yes. People at home *are* behind NAT boxes, with all
the usual pain that implies *. It's just that BitTorrent, being a
straightforward TCP protocol with no embedded
In message e4783be7-33a8-46f3-b9bf-5273c82ee...@cisco.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pat
rik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= writes:
On 28 maj 2010, at 21.39, Jari Arkko wrote:
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack
(full stop).
Unfortunately on applications layer I do not see
On 31 maj 2010, at 03.39, Mark Andrews wrote:
And have any of those that say this tried:
1) tried dual stack
2) tried IPv6 only through NAT64 (NAT-PT)
with a sample of customers or are they just talking without any
reference points.
I am spending lots of my time trying to
Ofer Inbar wrote:
... what's next?
Carrier-based NAT?
Virtual-hosting encrypted http?
Actually using IPv6 en masse?
Something else?
Something else of port restricted IP, with which an IPv4 address
can be shared by 100 or 1,000 hosts while keeping the end to end
transparency.
On 2010-05-28 04:51, David Conrad wrote:
...
Well, no. While that is a problem, I suspect the real issue is:
'Within 18 months it is estimated that the number of new devices able to
connect to the world wide web will plummet as we run out of IP addresses'
I strongly suspect that Daniel
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: Noel Chiappa; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
To: Ofer Inbar c...@a.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:37 AM
The point of the article was to make more people aware of IPv6 and to
urge them actually start planning to move to IPv6.
I've got IPv6 at home
The size and timing of the address resource problem depends on your
viewpoint, of course. Your existing address resources, your growth rate,
your subscriber base, the extent to which more NATs remove your problem
all vary.
But I would argue this does not really matter so much. I think we have
On 05/28/2010 03:42 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
We will need also mainstream news articles in the latter.
Expect that around the end of July, intoning «In one year, the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority is expected…»
Arnt
___
Ietf mailing list
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= p...@cisco.com
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think. Note
that most of the difference between the protocols are features and
On 2010-05-29 03:01, David Conrad wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global
address sharing.
An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the
other form of global
On 05/28/2010 05:01 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On May 28, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Today, most users are *not* behind ISP NAT or some other form of global address
sharing.
An interesting assertion. I'd agree on the ISP NAT part. Not sure about the other
form of global
Noel ,
Really? As far as I can tell, there is still no general, defined, method to
allow an IPv6 host with a v6-only address (i.e. not an IPv4 address embedded
in an IPv6 address) to talk to an IPv4-only host.
So, for all that content which is IPv4 only, how does an IPv6-only host get
to it?
In message 20100528154216.d9fee6be...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, Noel Chiappa write
s:
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= p...@cisco.com
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think.
On May 28, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Consider bittorrent. Bittorrent clients generally can run behind NAT, but in
that case they have to be on the same ethernet as the NATbox, so it's a safe
bet that the bittorrent USER has a real address. Am I stepping out on a limb
if I
My objective when talking to reporters who write for the *business*
section is to project that mere awareness is not good enough anymore for
businesses; businesses need to have a plan. For you all on this list
this should help the next time you talk to the suits who decide about
strategy and
Mark,
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4 only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite.
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack
(full stop). DS-Lite is needed in some situations,
In message 4c001bd5.4020...@piuha.net, Jari Arkko writes:
Mark,
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4 only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite.
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use
Jari Arkko wrote:
A IPv6 only host has to have access to a IPv4 address to talk to IPv4
only
hosts. The simplest way to do this is to actually stay dual stack and use
DS-lite.
... the simplest (and recommended) way to do this is to use dual stack
(full stop).
Do you mean IPv6
On 27 May 2010, at 14:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Is that the Matt Ford who works for ISOC or somebody else?
The latter.
The person quoted is well-known, so that makes me think this story was
written by someone with a clue.
No comment ;)
Mat
From: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
this story was written by someone with a clue.
Not really. A high marketing FUD / technical content ratio.
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message across.
IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address space will
increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the IPv6 space.
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not yet
On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message
across. IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address
space will increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the
IPv6
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not on a par with *IPv4*
networks and services.
Apologies.
Steve
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula rumbi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I agree.
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
at least have extensive experience in these matters.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
at least have extensive experience in these
FYI, BBC scooped the story on 11 May, and had a story on the topic last
September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10105978.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8227117.stm
On May 27, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: Noel Chiappa; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
(objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
(which is not so easy to predict, but 2015 is a popular estimate). The
rest is pretty good for a story in
In message 20100527205219.gw5...@mip.a.org, Ofer Inbar writes:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
(objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
(which is not so easy to predict,
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think. Note that
most of the difference between the protocols are features and operational
experiences the ISPs have. For the end user...how much difference is there
] On Behalf Of Brian
E Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: Noel Chiappa; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 depletion makes CNN
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone
51 matches
Mail list logo
