On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:36:07AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
But that app has to be something particularly splendid. And in Europe at
least, NAT is not as prevalent as some think it is.
It is prevalent wherever there is broadband. And that is where (with the
extra bandwidth and always-on)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:36:07AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
Are you suggesting then, that all RFCs based on IPv6 should be... stopped?
That's what happens when you write e-mails and then don't check them before
sending them...
s/IPv6/IPv4 - obviously. :-)
--
Paul Robinson
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:13:02PM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
IPv6 will not take off any time soon because neither the end-user nor the
service provider sees the need. The moment AOL, Wanadoo, Tiscali, World
Online et al shout out we *need* IPv6 it will happen. Quickly.
IPv6 is taking off
On 13-jan-04, at 10:36, Paul Robinson wrote:
Continuing work on IPv4 only creates the illusion that it is a viable
protocol for application developers to rely on for future income.
Are you suggesting then, that all RFCs based on IPv6 should be...
stopped?
I think that one should read IPv4...
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:30:05AM +, Tim Chown wrote:
It is prevalent wherever there is broadband. And that is where (with the
extra bandwidth and always-on) connectivity into the network is desirable.
Not around me it isn't. In the UK, even with cable modem providers, I have
non-NAT -
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:21:33AM +, Paul Robinson wrote:
Not around me it isn't. In the UK, even with cable modem providers, I have
non-NAT - as they are known in the European ISP industry RIPE addresses -
and although I've installed NAT myself to enable quick and easy WiFi access
Paul Robinson wrote:
I think if we say From the middle of next year, no more IPv4 RFCs or drafts
please, then vendors and application developers will have to sit up and
take notice. Remember, the protocols take between 6-36 months to be deployed
for real, so what we'd actually be saying is we
I'm sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to be lured into another
exchange in this thread, but I can't help it...
On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
In other
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:43:43AM -0600, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
Something about this thread confuses me :-0 Now maybe it
is just me having my head down in the sand.. I work in the
transport area mainly and last I checked:
1) TCP/SCTP and UDP all run over IPv6, in fact SCTP
Admittedly I can't remember where I read it, but I've come across
a suggestion that enterprise networks adopting IPv6 is likely to
happen before ISPs provide it in any big way, as enterprise
networks have more to gain from the technology (well, possibly,
assuming they can be convinced
I'm making a product from scratch shortly and think the tide has turned to
support IPv6 as much as possible. I haven't looked. Are Docsis Cable modems
2.0 IPv6 aware? How about MS operating systems?
If ISP's and cable ops didn't ration fixed IP's NAT wouldn't be so popular.
Its a way to evade an
Actually, I'm told by ISP people that they don't make money off their address
charges, that they basically just cover their own costs.
Noel
Bell Canada here charges $10 or so for a few fixed IP's per month. They are
bought for $0.60 US as a one time cost.
A pretty good cover.
Regs,
Dan
Dan
From: Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of course, if after a couple of years it isn't working, there is nothing
stopping the IETF rescinding, and supporting IPv4 once more due to
customer pressures. :-)
Hello? That's where we are *now*.
May I remind you that IPv6 has been
At 07:37 13/01/04, Joe Abley wrote:
The operational cost of supporting both v4 and v6 from the network
perspective not great, based on our experience (although the support load
for v6 clients to content hosted in our network is currently much lower
than for v4 clients, as you'd expect).
I'd be
Anyway, the point is that successful networking technologies don't take 10
years to succeed. They either catch on, or they don't, and after 10 years
this one has not caught on.
Ho boy. Good point there. Its like boy oh boy! POP3 is dead use IMAP.
blablabla
IPv6 oddly though is sort of a hmmm
Just a small comment:
Should not you first investigate the reason why IPv6 is not successful in
terms of deployment (yet)? So that, we won't make the same mistakes if the
world decides to sth else
At 09:39 AM 1/13/2004 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Paul Robinson [EMAIL
From: Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
In other words, because some ISP with whom he has NO relationship has
deemed his own ISP spam-friendly, he should abandon his ISP,
On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
You might be ignorant instead of dishonest.
How very kind of you to consider two possibilities, thank you.
Are you calling me and those who point out that some blacklists
detect 70-90% of spam with false positive rates below
Thank you. This does answer the question, and is a good example of how to
approach questions in a societal forum like ISDF where even rhetorical
questions may hide a cry for information. Once again, thank you.
w
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, John C
Klensin wrote: --On Thursday, 08 January, 2004
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Anyway, the point is that successful networking
technologies don't take 10 years to succeed. They
either catch on, or they don't, and after 10
years this one has not caught on.
And as of the DoD requirements, those of us that are old enough will
remember the ADA
At 06:41 PM 1/9/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
Could you point to significant amounts of real mail, as opposed to
theoretical examples, that might reasonably have consider legitimate
by its targets but that was rejected as the result of a MAPS RBL
listing? Note that the validity of mail is
I suspect that any approach that was chosen was the result of negotiations
and discussions among those who took part in the discussion at that time.
Any solution would raise questions in a societal setting, since unanimity
is not the norm in a democratic process. The RFC process has extended
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Like it or not, the IETF must stop wasting time and effort building new
structures on a crumbling framework.
I agree completely.
Now, can we all agree that almost 10 years after it was formally adopted by
the IETF, IPv6 is has clearly not
Pardon me if I'm missing something obvious here, but couldn't one just
use either XMPP or Simple for presence, associate your server name
with a Jabber/Simple ID, and automatically have your server findable
via these general presence protocols? Why isn't that a reasonable
approach to peer to
Dear Wawa, John, and colleagues,
Talking about approaching questions in a societal forum like the ISDF...
I am following your discussion but don't feel certain I should write to the
IETF mailing list, so I will only respond in the list where I am subscribed
- the ISDF.
veni
At 19:09 09.1.2004
Ken == Ken Hornstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I'm really looking for is some form of official
government communication on the subject (unless of course the
hosts are the ones who are manning the passport control desks
at the airport).
So call the nearest
At 06:50 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
Instead of paying the extra cost to hire an ISP that cares
enough to not have spamming customers, people complain about the evils
of blacklists.
Feh. Once again with the incorrect assumptions. I don't spam. I would preferentially
route email
At 10:45 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
Proven wrong, you now change your argument to one of trying to rationalize
interference with legitimate email, and attempting to place the
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem to have missed the point. ... You will never hear a consumer
demanding IPv6 .. You won't hear ISP's demanding IPv6 unless their
customers are demanding apps that run over IPv6 (even then the consumer
is more likely to use an
At 10:45 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
Proven wrong, Vernon now changes his tack to one of trying to rationalize interference
with legitimate email and attempting to place the
From: Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might be ignorant instead of dishonest.
How very kind of you to consider two possibilities, thank you.
My original words that you felt labelled you dishonest explicitly
included that possibility. Most people have strong opinions about
spam,
Noel Chiappa writes:
Now, can we all agree that almost 10 years after it was formally adopted by
the IETF, IPv6 is has clearly not succeeded in becoming the ubiquitous
replacement for IPv4, and needs to be moved to Historic, so we can turn our
energy and attention to things that *will*
Hayriye Altunbasak wrote:
Should not you first investigate the reason why
IPv6 is not successful in terms of deployment
(yet)? So that, we won't make the same mistakes
if the world decides to sth else
These reasons are well-known and two-fold:
1. It's an investment without any
--On Tuesday, 13 January, 2004 15:41 +0100 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Gentlemen,
let agree IETF is lacking formal interfaces with the real
world of users and the real world of operators. John
Klensin's official participation to the ICANN BoD is a first
good step towards formal links with
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:23:10 PST, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And as of the DoD requirements, those of us that are old enough will
remember the ADA language.
GOSIP.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
The upgrade path (replace the entire internet layer in one fell swoop) IPv6
adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different.
Exactly. As we have been saying for years not, we must aim for
co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6, not
Pekka Savola
Exactly. As we have been saying for years not,
we must aim for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6,
not replacing IPv4 with IPv6.
IPv6 is currently not worth the price of dual-stack, which is the very
reason it is not being deployed. As of transition mechanisms, they're
not good
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
The upgrade path (replace the entire internet layer in one fell swoop) IPv6
adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different.
Exactly. As we have been saying for years not, we must
On 1/12/2004 9:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
IPv6's only hope of some modest level of deployment is, as the latter
part of your message points out, as the substrate for some hot
application(s). Somehow I doubt anything the IETF does or does not do
is going to have any affect on whether or not
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote:
IPv6 is currently not worth the price of dual-stack, which is the very
reason it is not being deployed.
Some think it's worth the price. In many cases, the price (in terms
of money, at least) is zero.
In any case, the users are given the opportunity to
Noel Chiappa wrote:
...
IPv6 simply isn't going to get deployed as a replacement for IPv4. It's
just
not enough better to make it worth switching - and you can flame all day
about
how NAT's are preventing deployment of new applications, but I can't run
an
SMTP or HTTP server in my house
At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
Valdis, you have confused two protocols that produced similar results
but used different underlying transports and different signalling.
--Paul
Yup, it needs a killer app or feature. Bigger address space was that
feature, but one made moot by NATs.
VoIP and multimedia via SIP without having a resident network engineer in
your attic.
Enough said?
Dan
On 1/13/2004 1:06 PM, Dan Kolis wrote:
Yup, it needs a killer app or feature. Bigger address space was that
feature, but one made moot by NATs.
VoIP and multimedia via SIP without having a resident network engineer in
your attic.
Enough said?
in your attic implies end-user benefit. As I
Eric A. Hall wrote:
On 1/12/2004 9:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
IPv6's only hope of some modest level of deployment is, as the latter
part of your message points out, as the substrate for some hot
application(s). Somehow I doubt anything the IETF does or does not do
is going to have any affect
Tony,
Tony Hain wrote
Like it or not, we are at the end of the IPV4 road
I think that's where you missed it. We are not. The truth is that the
end of the IPv4 road is in sight; how far away we don't really know, as
looking through the NAT binoculars does not seem to make it closer. How
fast we
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:46:17 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
Valdis, you have confused two protocols that produced
On 1/13/2004 1:24 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Eric A. Hall wrote:
Other than conserving addresses, NAT features are basically poison
resold as bread.
Heck, I don't even like the conservation feature.
Misguided allocation policies created a false demand. We would have been
better off to run out
--On Monday, 12 January, 2004 22:03 -0500 Noel Chiappa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
IPv6 simply isn't going to get deployed as a replacement for
IPv4. It's just not enough better to make it worth switching
- and you can flame all day about how NAT's are preventing
deployment of new
John C Klensin wrote:
Noel, I'm slightly more optimistic along at least two other dimensions...
...
(2) The no servers unless you pay business rates, and its close
relative, you don't get to run VPNs, or use your own email address
rather than ours nonsense you and many others are experiencing
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
[..]
(Yes, I know, the support situation has improved and we expect wide-scale
deployment in the next year - I think I've heard that same mantra every year
for the last N years. I really ought to go back through my email folders and
create a web page of IPv6
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
(1) As others have pointed out, the knowledge/skill level of a
typical ISP seems to be on a rapid downslope with no end in
sight. ...
...
* The difference between those business rates and
whatever you are paying are mostly
At 18:39 13/01/04, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 13 January, 2004 15:41 +0100 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gentlemen,
let agree IETF is lacking formal interfaces with the real world of users
and the real world of operators. John Klensin's official participation
to the ICANN BoD is a
Email below is from Mr. Sang Yoo, in the visa office of the
Korean consulate in Washington DC. It should put to rest the
question of visas for the upcoming IETF meeting in Seoul.
Gene Gaines
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a forwarded message
From: ¹Ì±¹ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
55 matches
Mail list logo
