Eliot,
Eliot Lear wrote:
What you say is possible, and has happened. But dumb
things happen. Those dumb things could happen with non
site-local addresses as well.
More limited, that's the point. Not perfect, but better than unregulated
anarchy. However, between a network design that does not
Particularly the third item...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 March 2003 16:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ga] ITU-T Workshops on E-Health, E-Government, and Next
Generation Ne tworks
The ITU-T is organizing three open workshops on,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 05:48:44PM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
My Windows-XP laptop currently has 14 IPv6 addresses, and 2 IPv4
addresses. The sky is not falling.
Except of those 14 some seven(?) are RFC3041 addresses, which break a
number of applications... so there are some clouds in
I suspect that most people there, who voted for
the elimination ...
At my first IETF meeting I received a T-Shirt, courtesy of Marshall
Rose, I believe, that said We reject kings, presidents and voting...
The real tragicomedy of this situation is that someone considered it
fitting and proper
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
As you know, I was in favor of setting aside a prefix (FECO::, in fact)
for use as private address space (either on disconnected networks, or
behind NATs), but the consensus of the folks in the IPv6 WG meeting
was to deprecate that prefix altogether. There were several
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 06:46:10PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
No, it's more than that. SLs impose burdens on hosts and apps.
SLs break the separation of function between apps and the network that
is inherent in the end-to-end principle.
Is it safe to assume that the arguments (on either side)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:47:45 PST, Michel Py said:
two pieces of duct tape is really way superior to Cisco products. Yeah,
right. If Cisco became market leader, it is because of their ability to
design and manufacture products that actually work in enterprises and
not because of questionable
I guess I am missing something here about free markets and free societies.
What is wrong with criticism? If it is valid, then the results are
deserved, if not, then it will be ignored. The fact is that for many people
the home-made router is superior for many reasons: price, control,
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
automagically with each DNS registration?
--On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:36 AM -0800 Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Tony,
I've been trying to get my mind around the various issues here,
and I keep getting
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:31 EST, David R. Oran said:
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
automagically with each DNS registration?
Routing Table Bloat. If you can figure out how to do this in a CIDR
aggregation context, or otherwise work around the table problem,
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
automagically with each DNS registration?
Routing Table Bloat. If you can figure out how to do this in a CIDR
aggregation context, or otherwise work around the table problem, the
IETF and NANOG will quite certainly jointly
layers above it and a dangerous blow to the hour glass model.
Looking at what is going on in the IETF, I think we are talking about
first aid rather than trying to prevent the blow as such. That happened
along time ago...:-(
But yes, we need to protect the architectural model or discuss a new
Because such thing does not exist, it's called PI and is not available
to IPv6 end-sites. And if it ever is, it will cost money or other
annoyances to obtain.
SLs won't come for free either. Architecture aside, I prefer people
that use a service to pay for it rather than the community as such.
To echo the favorable review of Steve's presentation: It's at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/slides/plenary-1/index.html,
and is well worth the few minutes it takes to read/re-read...
Spencer
--- Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Deering made a wonderful presentation
Except of those 14 some seven(?) are RFC3041 addresses, which break a
number of applications... so there are some clouds in the sky.
3041 may be next on the hit-list. Pretty soon it truly will be
nothing but bigger addresses.
lets shoot down those 128 bit addresses too, 64 must be enough.
David R. Oran wrote:
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
automagically with each DNS registration?
I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
for 'private' (never to be connected to the internet) purposes.
I think some others have proposed a
John C Klensin wrote:
(ii) ISPs impose restrictions on their customers all the time
and often even enforce them. Many of us consider some of these
to be desirable (e.g., terms and conditions prohibiting
spamming) and others less so (e.g., prohibitions against running
server or peer-peer
--On Friday, 28 March, 2003 15:50 -0800 Tony Hain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
(ii) ISPs impose restrictions on their customers all the time
and often even enforce them. Many of us consider some of
these to be desirable (e.g., terms and conditions
prohibiting spamming) and
John C Klensin wrote:
... but I am unconvinced that we should make special
architectural provisions to make it easier to be in the ISP
business while being clueless.
Isn't that just what we did with MPLS?? ;)
or does that just prove your point? ;))
My arguments are more about
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
We, or more specifically, the upstream ISP or an RIR, can
tell the ISP that things will go badly for them if they
permit un-routable addresses to leak into the public
Internet. The only difference I can see between what I
think is your SL address preference and
--On Friday, 28 March, 2003 14:54 -0500 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit
smaller) automagically with each DNS registration?
Routing Table Bloat. If you can figure out how to do this in
a CIDR aggregation context, or otherwise work
John, mixed bag of nasties here. Routing, addressing, and (of course)
the DNS. More fun than should be legal on a friday afternoon.
Routing: there is a varient here. Think about routing table slots.
If I get one, does it matter what the length of the prefix that I
put in it? There are
Tony is right -- any registration process costs resources.
agreed, though the cost of registering a domain name should serve as a useful
upper bound. at least with address blocks you don't have to worry about I18N,
trademark infringement, etc.
But, if these addresses are assumed to be not
% David R. Oran wrote:
%
% Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
% automagically with each DNS registration?
%
% I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
% for 'private' (never to be connected to the internet) purposes.
% I think some others
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% David R. Oran wrote:
%
% Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
% automagically with each DNS registration?
%
% I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
% for 'private' (never to be
What is not
fixable is the fact that apps will break if you change an address out
from under them.
heck, TCP breaks if you change an address out from under it, so it's
hardly surprising that apps using TCP break under similar conditions.
the TCP/IP architecture simply was not designed to
Keith;
I disagree with your assessment. I will continue this technical discussion
on the WG list after the minutes are published.
Rich
At 06:26 PM 3/27/03 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
I second Tony's key point. SL's are just 1 form of IPv6 addresses
with a limited scope. As soon as
Charlie,
Charles E. Perkins wrote:
What if the market were shaped by:
- using questionable business practices to
cripple/kill competitors?
- predatory/stupid legislation? (e.g., efforts to
outlaw French technology)
- selective failure to enforce existing legislation?
- powerful and
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:29:22 -0600
John Kristoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 06:46:10PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
No, it's more than that. SLs impose burdens on hosts and apps.
SLs break the separation of function between apps and the network
that is inherent in the
29 matches
Mail list logo
