[I've taken the bulk of my response to Ed's last reply to private
mail, since I assume few here are interested in tedious arguments
about exactly how the Internet is analogous to the postal system,
but I'll just make his one public observation:]
At 9:45 PM -0800 2/15/01, Ed Gerck wrote:
I agree
David,
Ron Natalie and I renumbered hq.af.mil the week of the Loma Prieta quake.
List the NAT implementations deployed at the time.
The point you'll have made is that an-aide-to-renumbering NATs weren't.
If they are marketed now as such, happy, but not necessary, is the marketeer.
Eric
Ed, you seem to be ignoring the difference between identification,
location, and routing. What the post office does is routing, not NAT.
The NAT problem is a problem because IP addresses mix the concepts
of identification and location in a single bit string. There's nothing
natural about it, at
List:
My example of the UK postal system, with addresses that behave as names,
was NOT an attempt to make a parallel between the postal system and the
full glory of the Internet. BTW, I don't believe in such parallels. Sorry to disapoint
those that thought so! ;-)
My sole puprose with that
At 8:12 AM -0800 2/16/01, Ed Gerck wrote:
1. there is a natural need for heterogeneous address systems and,
Agreed.
2. therefore, there is a natural need for address translation.
Only if there's some need to interconnect them, and even then only as
a temporary measure, if at all, because there
1. there is a natural need for heterogeneous address systems and,
okay
2. therefore, there is a natural need for address translation.
no. it doesn't follow, at least not in the sense of address translation
as done by NAT. there is a natural need for *routing* or *mapping*
between higher
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
If you do not wish to receive future email messages, please forward
this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(be sure to forward the ENTIRE message, or you may not be removed!)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Hi,
Recently I read some presentation slides at
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~braun/talks/swisscom498/ppframe.htm
on "Differentiated Services of Internet".
I am confused with the statements about "Assured Services"
1) Users/ISP negotiate service profile
2) No QoS guarantees but low loss
See RFC 2373 2.5.8 Local-Use IPv6 Unicast Addresses
-Original Message-
From: Kyle Lussier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:57 PM
To: Michael W. Condry
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPv6 / NAT
Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix
Bernard,
Exactly. That is why 6to4 came out the way it did - it offers a way
for a NATted IPv4 site to introduce non-NATted IPv6 without losing
anything or throwing away anything.
There are RFCs explaining the issues with NAT technically and objectively.
I don't see why this generates comments
Taking your valuable points a bit further, NAT avoidance arguments aren't likely to
sell IPv6 to us large end users, because this is a problem for which it is difficult
to construct a business case that will excite the non-technical managers who are in
charge of blessing large capital
| I don't see why this generates comments about anti-NAT religion.
I prepared a shockingly rude but very funny riposte to this message,
however the spirits intervened and decided to make a poorly-aimed
wheel-mouse motion kill the editor in a surprising way.
Unless this can be attributed to the
Steve Deering wrote:
At 8:12 AM -0800 2/16/01, Ed Gerck wrote:
1. there is a natural need for heterogeneous address systems and,
Agreed.
2. therefore, there is a natural need for address translation.
Only if there's some need to interconnect them, and even then only as
a temporary
Unless this can be attributed to the universe's hatred of NAT in
general, may I humbly suggest that this is a suggestion from the loa
that we return to the discussion at hand, viz. how to make
midboxes more useful to the people who choose to deploy them, by (for
example) exposing servers
Taking your valuable points a bit further, NAT avoidance arguments aren't
likely to sell IPv6 to us large end users, because this is a problem for which
it is difficult to construct a business case that will excite the
non-technical managers who are in charge of blessing large capital
| I respectfully but firmly disagree that this is "the discussion at
| hand", or even that such a discussion is a useful. but if you must
| have that discussion, please take it to the midcom list.
Ah, sorry, mea maxima culpa - I had misread (several times)
the To:/Cc: line as containing the
16 matches
Mail list logo
