I realize that the anycast discussion was meant by Karl as an example.
But there was precisely one technical concern I had when discussion got
going. And that was that if something went wrong- meaning that someone
was returning bad data- the IP address wouldn't necessarily provide a
clear
On 8 Dec 2003, at 10:14, Dean Anderson wrote:
Also, anycasting doesn't work for TCP.
Would you care to elaborate on doesn't work?
I agree. It is easy to create a blackhole, or even a DDOS on an
anycast
address. It is much harder to DDOS 600 IP addresses spread through
some
200 countries.
On 7 Dec 2003, at 07:21, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I don't think this is an oversight, I'm pretty sure this was
intentional. However, since in practice the BGP best path selection
algorithm boils down to looking at the AS path length and this has the
tendency to be the same length for many
% (i personally don't think a /35 route with just one host in it makes
% much sense,
%
% Agree.
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
At 17:05 08/12/03, Eliot Lear wrote:
Good documentation is also really important. It turns out there is some
for F, at least. See http://www.isc.org/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.html by Joe Abley.
No one denies the dedication of the root people. But this is the crux.
some documentation ... for one
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
is an open issue, (b)
Joe Abley;
I don't think this is an oversight, I'm pretty sure this was
intentional. However, since in practice the BGP best path selection
algorithm boils down to looking at the AS path length and this has the
tendency to be the same length for many paths, BGP is fairly useless
for deciding
% Either we need the root system and it must match the basic surety rules for
% a critical infrastructure, or we just want to keep the fossil concept the
% way it was designed 20 years ago.
Why do you think this is an either/or proposition?
% Then UN/ITU or private industry or a new
% /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
% 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
% have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
%
% i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this
% is an open
Joe Abley;
I'm afraid F servers does not follow the intention of my original
proposal of anycast root servers.
This may well be the case (I haven't read your original proposal).
The IDs have expired. I'm working on a revised one.
Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Paul Vixie wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might-
have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :)
i think the important points for ietf@
Bill Manning wrote:
% b) that it's generally agreed that all the RIR's ought
% to have the same rules regarding microallocations,
(b) on the other hand, has any number of
legal implications... collusion, monopolies, etc.
But this is a example where uniformity is desirable on technical
Bill Manning wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
overkill... :)
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33,
Just saw this online, and it seem apropos to recent traffic:
A controversial plan to grant governments broad controls over the Internet
has stolen the spotlight of a United Nations conference on IT next week,
where China and Cuba will be among its strongest supporters.
Leaders from
On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I'm afraid F servers does not follow the intention of my original
proposal of anycast root servers.
This may well be the case (I haven't read your original proposal).
Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought to the contrary.
Finally, using
% Bill Manning wrote:
% /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
% 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
% -might- have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even
% overkill... :)
%
% Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations:
Hi -
From: jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: just a brief note about anycast
...
The world wants a new network
approach, more equal, more secure, more stable, safer, more innovation
oriented,
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:17:00 GMT, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length filters
aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either way;
is there
Phrases like national digital independence and sovereignty
make it sound as though the real motivation for all this is to
make it easier for the repressive regimes of the world to
selectively disconnect themselves from the global net.
Things are bad enough already. Let's not help the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[This should go to v6ops@ or [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) ]
Zefram wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
/35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries...
4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host
-might- have global reachability. IMHO, a
As a (not too) humble regular DNS user as opposed to an insider... What is
the worst case scenerio on this, anyway?
It seems to me our buddies and the North American power reliabability board;
(whatever) would say they can't POSSIBLY fail such that power is out for
days. Yet it happened. I think
On 8-dec-03, at 22:01, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not
be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc)
So how are ISPs
Noel Chiappa writes:
Anyone know more about this?
Since it is being discussed in secret (with even ICANN excluded,
apparently), it's hard to know more.
[my apologies for burning so much bandwith]
On 8-dec-03, at 22:17, Zefram wrote:
Just wondering, as I have about IPv4 anycast allocations: why can't we
designate a block for microallocations, within which prefix length
filters
aren't applied? The number of routes in the DFZ is the same either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine if somebody
flubs and withdraws a /12 and announces a /12 worth of /28
That's why I suggested relaxing the filters only within a designated
block. So (for IPv4) the /12 worth of /28s gets ignored, but the
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have highlighted to APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with many possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed what range if they request IPv6?
Don't tell me they do not need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything /35.
Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries.
Thus if a certain
There have been fairly intense discussions in a series of meetings called PrepComs
as in preparatory committees leading up to the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) taking place December 10-12 in Geneva. In the most recent meetings, a
government only rule was invoked that excluded
Dan,
One small addition to your discussion/scenario...
As has been pointed out on this list, the actual rate of changes
in the root zone is on the order of a few per week.
Statistically, that means your 24 hour rollback might, often,
have zero effect. Now compare this to the change rate in
At 11:21 AM +1200 12/09/2003, Franck Martin wrote:
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have highlighted to
APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with many
possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed what range if
Franck Martin wrote:
Just some perspectives on the IPv6 addressing scheme, that I have
highlighted to APNIC.
A country like Tuvalu with about 10,000 people, which is an island with
many possibility of connectivity to the Internet would be attributed
what range if they request IPv6?
Don't tell me
://money.cnn.com/2003/12/08/technology/internet.reut/
4. The Washington Times: U.N. control of Web rejected
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031208-125717-6682r.htm
5. SeattlePi.com: Talks seek global Internet ground rules
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700slug=
UN%20Tech
% Root nameservers are a very different story of course...
%
% A /32 contains 65k /48's, so these IX blocks could provide for
% enough /48's for 65k IX's, thus unless that switch at the back
% of my desk, which connects 'neighbours' too is to be called an
% IX, because they have a linux router
On 12/8/2003 5:36 PM, vinton g. cerf wrote:
The subject of Internet Governance has been a large focus of
attention, as has been a proposal for creating an international fund to
promote the creation of information infrastructure in the developing
world. Internet Governance is a very broad
See http://www.isoc.org/
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Noel Chiappa writes:
Anyone know more about
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Phrases like national digital independence and sovereignty make
it sound as though the real motivation for all this is to make it
easier for the repressive regimes of the world to selectively disconnect
themselves from the global net. Things are bad
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot it be this body, we are looking for?
Cheers
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 11:36, vinton g. cerf wrote:
There have been fairly intense discussions in a series of meetings called PrepComs as in preparatory committees leading up to the World Summit on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[2 mails into one again]
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller than that.
This, if it happens,
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
v
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot it be this body, we are looking for?
Vint Cerf
SVP Technology Strategy
MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690
vinton g. cerf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
What is wrong with ISOC?
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
This is a feature, not a bug.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | people won't be sure
Hi.
This seems worth forwarding to the IETF list in case people have
comments they would like to submit as individuals. I'm also
forwarding it to the IAB in the event that they think a formal
comment is appropriate.
Reading hint: while the proposed procedure seems, from the
description, to
Hi -
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: just a brief note about anycast
...
Well, they think we are the chauvenists of unilateralism. If we had
played more fairly and
Franck Martin writes:
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot it be this body, we are looking for?
ISOC membership is open to anyone. Very few governments are going to
support an organization that does not restrict its membership to elite
government representatives.
Dean Anderson writes:
Well, they think we are the chauvenists of unilateralism. If we had
played more fairly and honestly, they might not be so suspicious of our
motives.
What has been unfair and dishonest thus far? Dominance by the U.S. does
not automatically equate to unfairness and
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:15, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
How would replacing ICANN (or the IETF) with the ITU
make things any less unilateral? As I see it, all that it would
accomplish is that it would give governments and corporations
a more direct voice in matters, at the expense of
% I, personally, see absolutely no problem into making it the 'critical infra'
% or 'root server' prefix, when it is documented correctly. EP.NET acts as
% a neutral body, with this way kinda of a sub-RIR though. All root-servers
% should be using the space then btw, not a few, but all of
At 3:30 PM +1200 12/9/03, Franck Martin wrote:
And one important fact, is that IETF issues standards which do not
contain patents... but ITU does!
It depends on what you mean by do not contain patents. If you mean
that are not covered by any patents, then tropical living has
really affected
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:30, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
The real concerns of the Third World are three: (1) they want more
money from the West for their corrupt governments; (2) they want to
suppress any form of free speech that might undermine their corrupt
governments; and (3) they want
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted.
Scott
v
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:37:18 EST, shogunx said:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted.
The fact that cats could swim for long periods
51 matches
Mail list logo
