Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
In the multi6 (multihoming in IPv6) working group, as one of many
proposals, we've been looking at putting a 64 bit host identifier in
the bottom 64 bits of an IPv6 address. If such a host identifier is
crypto-based (ie, a hash of a public key) then it is
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
I guess not because I have no idea what you're talking about.
There is a natural tendency to think that by dividing a 128-bit address
field into two 64-bit fields, the address space is cut in half (or
perhaps not diminished at all). However, in reality, dividing
Jari Arkko writes:
However, I do not believe these proposals consume any
more address space than, say, manual or EUI-64
based address assignment.
In order to use the full potential address space, you must devise a
scheme that allocates every single combination of bits. The simplest
scheme of
Donald Eastlake 3rd writes:
See RFC 1715, November 1994, and the endless discussions that appeared
on a variety of mailing list about IPv6 addresses.
I guess the endless discussions didn't help, but that doesn't surprise
me.
Spencer Dawkins writes:
Well, sure. And then you do routing aggregation how?
I was describing the simplest scheme that ensures use of the entire
address space, nothing more.
I also deplore the waste of bits, and would love to hear
alternatives...
I've described alternatives before, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly. And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen ...
Such losses don't just happen. They are the result of incompetent
engineering.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Exactly. And the *reason* why IPv6 has 128 bit addresses is because
the designers realized that such losses happen, and ruled out 64-bit
addresses because of that effect.
Since those losses are not significantly diminished by doubling the
address length, why bother?
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
Ah, I see what you mean now. However, the devision is a done deal as
RFC 3513 mandates that all unicast IPv6 addresses except the ones
starting with the bits 000 must have a 64-bit interface identifier in
the lower 64 bits. This has some important advantages,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, so a /48 has 50% more bits than a /32. On the other hand,
I've heard no *major* problems with end users getting their /32 from
their provider, and there's 65,536 more /48s. Also, remember that many
end users are getting *multiple* IP's from their provider for
jfcm writes:
I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer.
Nah ... security officers and generals--if they are competent--don't put
their HQ computers
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
It seems there are (or were) 450 million bicycles in China. Think about
it: what's cheaper to mass produce, a 20 kilo steel bicycle with lots
of intricate mechanics, or a simple 1 kilo plastic sub-laptop?
The bicycle, by far. The mechanics are not intricate, the
Zefram writes:
My question for the list is is there a web page or
other document anywhere that comprehensively states
the case against NAT?
If your new administrator is of the type who fixes things that aren't
broken, it may be the admininistrator that needs replacement, not the
network
Spencer Dawkins writes:
... perhaps there is no community consensus document
that says what the community consensus appears to be ...
I don't believe there is any consensus. I'm among those who don't like
NAT, considering it only an occasional, necessary evil.
Keith Moore writes:
This was shortsighted, just like having the notion of class built into
IPv4 addresses was shortsighted.
Just about everything about address allocation has always been
shortsighted.
I have a simple idea: Why not just define the first three /32 chunks of
the IPv6 address
Schiro, Dan writes:
This is a dangerous prospect. The company I work for makes a networking
stack and our IPv6 implementation expects the lower 64 bits to be the unique
interface identifier.
Does anyone see how wasteful this is? What's the likelihood of having
2^64 unique interfaces in the
Bob Hinden writes:
It was well understood that it was important to keep most of the IPv6
address space open to allow for future use.
Why do we need 42,535,295,865,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
addresses right now, then?
Kurt Erik Lindqvist writes:
so you are making claims and comments on something you don't even have
bothered to read the basic documentation on. Wow.
Wait twenty years, and we'll see who's surprised.
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
About 85% of the IPv6 address space is specifically left unused at this
time. And even within the 2000::/3 which is defined for global unicast
use *now* just 3/8192th is really used.
But that represents 5,192,296,858,530,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
addresses. Why
Bob Hinden writes:
2) For now, IANA should limit its allocation of IPv6 unicast
address space to the range of addresses that start with binary
value 001. The rest of the global unicast address space
(approximately 85% of the IPv6 address space) is reserved for future
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
You seem to assume that being frugal with address
space would make it possible to use addresess that
are much smaller than 128 bits.
I assume that if we are getting by with 2^32 addresses now, we don't
need 2^93 times that many any time in the foreseeable future.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it ...
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as required at either end. Such addressing allows
Johnny Eriksson writes:
You can start designing the ASICs now. It won't be easy.
It worked with Strowger switches and crossbar mechanical exchanges; why
would it be more difficult with ASICs?
Masataka Ohta writes:
Unlimited? The limitation on public part is 20 digits.
That's just a matter of programming these days.
Ad hoc extension beyond hardware supported length
at that time will fatally hurt performance.
What hardware limits numbers to 20 digits today?
Masataka Ohta writes:
On the Internet these days, it is a matter of hardware.
And the hardware is a matter of firmware.
Masataka Ohta writes:
No, it is not.
Unless individual logic gates are being designed into the hardware to
perform the desired function, it's firmware.
I haven't heard of this type of hard-wired logic being used for much of
anything except RISC processor instruction logic in ages. Given the
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.
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
Einar Stefferud writes:
At this time on this date, I cannot get a connection to http://www.isoc.org.
Have you ever gotten this connection?
It worked fine for me just now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that the most common failure mode is *not*
getting an RST back, but getting NOTHING back because
some squirrely firewall between here and there is silently
dropping packets with bits it doesn't understand.
Ah ... that would definitely be a bug with
Scott Bradner writes:
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
It's important to understand that the Internet is not monolithic, and no
matter what the latest and greatest standards may be, there will always
be parts of the Net that run older software. Expecting the entire Net
to
Theodore Ts'o writes:
There are a lot of really dumb, dumb, dumb firewall authors out there,
that's why
Actually, Sally Floyd's explanation makes a lot more sense.
The dumb authors, I think, are those who built Linux implementations
that doggedly attempt to negotiate ECN and are
Mark Smith writes:
Firewalls could be considered to be performing QA for defined
protocol fields. I agree that reserved fields shouldn't be QA'ed for
their default values.
Except that a change from default values can be an excellent indicator
that you are dealing with a software version
Theodore Ts'o writes:
What Linux implemented was specifically what was specified by RFC
3168, no more no less.
What FreeBSD implemented actually works. Which is preferable?
The issue is whether or not intermediate hosts are
justified in dropping packets just because some
bits that were
Franck Martin writes:
The problem is that ISOC firewalls are not up to standards.
Whose standards?
Franck Martin writes:
The IETF ones...
not supporting ECN
But ECN has not always been a standard. If all RFCs had been
simultaneously written forty years ago, it would be reasonable to speak
of one organization or another not respecting standards because it did
not adhere to a given RFC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonsense. I'm running Linux, several versions. I can
get to the ISOC site from all of them.
Then what is preventing others from doing so?
Tony Hain writes:
FWIW: I specifically left out the business community because they always
find a way to make money in whatever context the politicians create (even if
it takes influencing the politicians to create a favorable context).
You should leave out politicians, too, then, since they
Paul Hoffman / IMC writes:
Absolutely agree with this sentiment. Anyone who starts an anti-spam
proposal with All we need to do is digitally sign the {messages|SMTP
transmissions}... is completely unclear on how little governance
there is in this area.
I agree, but isn't this what Yahoo
Theodore Ts'o writes:
To continue quoting from RFC 3360, there were some good reasons stated
in that document for why reasonable implementors might not choose to
implement the workaround:
* The work-arounds would result in ECN-capable hosts not responding
properly to the first valid
John Kristoff writes:
Those are pretty bold statements.
Well, when something pops up in software I use that adds functionality
that I never wanted and breaks things that used to work, bold statements
are in order. If Microsoft had done this, someone would be calling for
a Constitutional
Theodore Ts'o writes:
But in the case of ECN, most of the major sites on the
net have fixed their broken firewalls.
Why is ECN being deployed by default? Does it fix some problem that is
worse than rendering thousands of hosts inaccessible?
Mark Smith writes:
I think you might be missing the point. ECN only breaks when used
with previous *bad* implementations of the relevant RFCs.
Perhaps my point isn't clear: ECN implementations prevent communication,
rather than enhance it. I don't see what advantage ECN provides, but it
has
Mark Smith writes:
So your currently requirements are exactly the same as all the
other users of the Internet?
No, but my situation is similar to theirs. They don't require
improvements if their systems do all they require, either.
I find it hard to believe that your requirements are
Paul Hoffman / IMC writes:
Oh, please. Describe a trust relationship that cannot be represented
using current PKI technology (PKIX certs, S/MIME signed messages,
OpenPGP certs, OpenPGP signed messages, or SPKI certs). The lack of
ability to represent the trust relationship is not what is
jamal writes:
So the Linux decision was infact a very good one. An award of some form
is in order.
Maybe Microsoft will be inspired to do things the same way: it can
change its implementations in order to break 10% of all sites around the
world, and when anyone complains, it can say that it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linux could at least stand on the claim that it was implementing
the RFCs as written, and that the interoperability problem was
due to the other end failing to implement the RFCs.
The RFCs are not specific enough to support such a claim.
Feel free to point at
Mark Smith writes:
So what purpose do RFCs serve if they aren't specific enough to be
complied with ?
They can easily be complied with and yet still be general. It's just
that there may be argument as to what constitutes perfect compliance or
lack thereof, and it isn't generally possible to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Microsoft knows better than the RFC?
No.
Microsoft knows better than to implement RFCs so everybody can benefit?
No.
I'm not sure that either parsing is what you want to be claiming.
Good.
I was saying that Microsoft knows better than to make claims such as you
Mark Smith writes:
Are you aware of the reason why certain words are capitalised in RFCs ?
Yes. I don't see the relevance of that here.
Implementations can be measured against the capitalised words in RFCs.
But there are many many ambiguous directives in RFCs, both with and
without
Jeff Williams writes:
Seems that the self styled father of the internet, Vinton Cerf's
IP [ Internet Protocol ] has finally begun to be recognized as
obsolete for wireless networking.
As compared to what?
Can someone tell me why my previous tiny message to this list generated
a 107,000-byte HTML message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying that
my message contained a virus or spam? Who is spamming whom here? Don't
people on this list know better?
Einar Stefferud writes:
Article from the Web Host Industry Review:
http://thewhir.com/features/subdomain.cfm
I guess the holder of this patent has never heard of prior art. Or
perhaps the Patent Office hasn't, since it seems to be willing to patent
a sunny day these days.
Bill Sommerfeld writes:
As the next IETF meeting will be in Paris, and France has had something
a reputation for placing strict controls on the use of cryptography, I
took a look..
(This is, of course, a matter of potential concern to those of us who
carry laptops with encryption software
Dean Anderson writes:
The IETF could write a letter to the appropriate Ministry to ask for a
special exemption.
It can't. Declarations and requests for authorization must come from
the vendor or the user.
But in practice, most types of crypto are lightly regulated, or not at
all, if they use
Christian Huitema writes:
Actually, there was a period in the 80's during which US tourists had
to obtain a visa before visiting France. This followed terrorist
bombings in Paris. The French authorities wanted to restrict movements
of potential terrorists. The terrorist movements involved
Sam Hartman writes:
Also, most of us are engineers. We'd like to know that what we are
doing is absolutely legal. We don't want to know that if some customs
agent really wants to make our life difficult they could and it would
be hard for us. Your trip will be safe unless you manage to
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
It seems they have never been enforced at all.
The powers that be choose various laws to persecute those whom they seek
to bring down; presumably no recent target has been in a situation such
that prosecution on the basis of crypto regulations was the easiest way
to
Benyamin Nasution writes:
So..., if it is true, it means that virtually all countrieas are
abusing their power?
The pattern of abuse generally tracks the extent to which existing laws
are routinely disobeyed. The greater the gulf between what the laws
require and what people actually do in
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin writes:
Dont worry, we just have it in the books to retaliate when USA blocks
Roquefort, Bordeaux, Renault, Alcatel or Airbus sales.
I wasn't talking about using the laws against foreigners. Usually they
are used against French nationals who become a little too uppity for
Will McAfee writes:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/
This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever
owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet,
by the very nature of it's structure.
Placing governments in charge of the Internet would be a disaster,
Paul Hoffman writes:
You talk as if you were a root operator and you know what they would
do. In fact, you run an alternate root, not a real root, so it seems
that you knowing what real root operators would do is particularly
unlikely.
There really isn't any such thing as a real root or
kent crispin writes:
That's sounds good, but in fact, it's utter nonsense. It's like saying that
the only difference between rowboat and a cargo ship is what people believe
about them. In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots,
it would simply collapse.
Well, no. If
Johan Henriksson writes:
a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list;
with such, we would not need the top organizations we have today,
it would be much harder for anyone to claim the net and thus
we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You need an authoritative root. I
If the IESG has the time to compile blacklists and go on witch hunts,
perhaps it doesn't have enough work to justify its existence.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Melinda Shore writes:
Unfortunately that no longer works all that well on Usenet,
either. The participant pool grows to the point where there's
always somebody new, or somebody who thinks that the problem
person has a point and who wants to discuss it, or someone
who thinks the problem
Randy Presuhn writes:
At the WG level, disruptive members cause an enormous increase in the
effort required to get anything done.
How hard can it be to delete messages?
Our desire to ensure that minority viewpoints are heard puts us in a
difficult bind when only ones expressing those
Michael Mealling writes:
The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly
and wouln't be hierarchical.
There are lots of users of the Internet besides trademark holders. I
don't see why this latter group deserves special consideration.
The output of such a system
Michael Mealling writes:
You're making assumptions that its one system. No other medium requires
uniqueness for the names _people_ use.
Any medium that does not require it tends to be extremely inefficient
and error-prone.
You and I are perfectly capable of understanding that there might
be
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people
do not want to connect to the rest of the world.
That's exactly what a lot of national governments would like to do.
Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do
try
Michael Mealling writes:
Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it represents
a pretty good description of how human beings cognitively use names and
words.
No, it simply represents the way trademark holders force others to do
their bidding. IP law is already enough of a
Michael Mealling writes:
All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup...
So is the current system. Why does it have to change?
Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of
users who consider the current system to be broken.
More specifically, there are
Michael Mealling writes:
To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a
look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around
navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in
NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution
Michael Mealling writes:
As the result of a service lookup they only need something that
identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an
identifier for...
What's wrong with http at the front, and/or a port number at the
back?
___
Michael Mealling writes:
Have you checked into how Skype and VOIP in general are working
internationally lately?
No. I already have a telephone.
Not an E.164 phone number anywhere in the entire thing. Its all identifiers
that look
like AOL screen names and peering agreements. And it
Thomas Gal writes:
Well certainly the network controls in place in china are a good
example of this. HOWEVER I'd say really it all boild down to power.
The path to power is paved with trampled freedoms.
YES! Not to mention the plethora of engineers and geeks who know too
much about what's
Nor am I.
Avri Doria writes:
well said. neither am i.
a.
On 6 okt 2005, at 13.42, Bill Manning wrote:
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Nelson, David writes:
For example, consider two college roommates. One wishes to exercise his
freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning
(without the benefit of headphones, of course!). The other wishes to
exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be well
Doug Ewell writes:
It has already been explained here that this has NOTHING to do with
tolerance for different opinions. It has everything to do with the
obnoxious, abusive, disrespectful manner in which those opinions have
been expressed.
Do you think that is an improvement?
Does the
kent crispin writes:
Toleration of disagreement has almost nothing to do with it. Instead, it's
more a matter of signal to noise ratio on a limited bandwidth channel. If
you fill up a list with ignorant drivel, people who don't have time to deal
with drivel will go away, leaving the list to
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to the responses.
But as of now, we have not received such a request in
the case of JFC Morfin.
In terms of RFC
Nelson, David writes:
I think that this is not so hard to distinguish as you suggest.
Then it should be straightforward to automate it in the form of a
robot that emotionlessly evaluates each post.
There are two general cases: (a) overly insistent and (b) overly
personal.
How much is
Gray, Eric writes:
It's just possible that the threshold might be higher for some
than it is for others.
So which threshold is the right threshold?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Gray, Eric writes:
I disagree with your statement: Most people will resort
to personal attacks very rapidly and readily once someone else
disagrees with them. At least in the current context. I feel
that this is an overly harsh charaterization of people generally
and people in the current
Thomas Gal writes:
Need implies accepting someone elses constraints. That's a poor
simplification, because 100 people could tell someone that they
need to stop posting friviously and harming list progress, and
they can still chose to ignore it if there are no teeth to the
rules.
A
Doug Ewell writes:
Does it make a difference, when someone is speaking to you in
person, whether they talk in a normal speaking voice or shout into
your ear with a bullhorn?
Not if I have access to ear protection (the equivalent of a delete
key, in this scenario).
Does it matter if they
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
PDF is *very* vendor-specific and proprietary. Who sets the
standards for PDF? I remember there used to be discussions
here if the RFC's should be published in PDF also. It's
always rejected of course, even if PDF is probably the best
standard you can get for a
Avri Doria writes:
I used to be a proponent of PDF usage in the IETF, but I have been
informed that there are no PDF readers for the blind. This makes it
less then optimal as a universal vehicle.
The simple solution is to have a text-only version of everything, even
if there is a PDF
Frank Ellermann writes:
For thoe who want this that's nice as far as it works, but I'm
generally more interested in the _content_ and not style or layout.
Sometimes layout is important, if text and graphic elements are mixed.
And I don't want to print it, I want to read it. In a GUI or text
shogunx writes:
Proprietary formats have no place in the IETF. The internet belongs to
everyone, not Microsoft.
Proprietary formats don't come exclusively from Microsoft, and a lot
of public formats start as proprietary formats. Even many public
formats are actually proprietary, even if they
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
The problems with HTML are almost entirely the result of people trying
to give the author control over the final format which is none of the
author's beeswax.
It has been the author's prerogative for thousands of years; I'm not
sure why that must change now. The
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
It has been the publisher's perogative, not the authors.
They have usually worked together.
Today, the author may do all the work, in which case he has complete
control.
The past ten years represent the anomaly in this regard,
not the norm.
More correctly,
Frank Ellermann writes:
But some PDFs generated with open office still work with my
old Acroreader 3, no colorspace 6 not found or other issues
like cannot extract embedded font. And why should I want
any embedded fonts, my OS/2 has a nice Adobe Courier, a nice
Adobe Hevetica, even some
Thomas Kuiper writes:
Here is a real beauty on page 22 of RFC 793:
An ideally suited to PDF. It would be much easier to generate that
way, much easier to read, and much easier to print legibly. There's
nothing wrong with having the text version as a backup, but when you
get into graphics it's
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
A bad one, empower the reader.
Why are readers more important than authors?
The point of communication is to get your point across to the READER.
For that, you need control over how the information is presented.
If you want to dictate the presentation to them
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
I agree, SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/)
should be the standard for RFC. True, it is not an IETF standard but
it is open (for whatever definition of open you choose).
Neither PostScript nor PDF is secret. And you can write software to
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
Because they are your customers.
The reader/author relationship is only very rarely comparable to
the customer/vendor relationship. For many authors, money is not that
important.
No, the author can not possibly know the needs of the reader.
The reader can pick
Randy.Dunlap writes:
SVG was mentioned (as spec'd by w3.org IIRC).
So check out Inkscape:
using the W3C standard Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) file format.
Available for multiple platforms.
http://www.inkscape.org/
Using an open format that requires people to install special free
Joe Touch writes:
XML is modern? Where's the modern, WYSIWYG, outline-mode capable
editor? And does one exist that's free?
XML is fashionable, not necessarily functional. There's a difference.
(I'd love to work in XML, but it seems like a 20-yr step backwards
to manually edit the source
Stewart Bryant writes:
However these are not taken as normative, so you have to
produce an ASCII equivalent, which fundamentally limits the
complexity of any normative diagram.
Depends. If the ASCII document is large enough, in theory you can
represent any monochrome image with an arbitrary
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
