At 16:25 14/12/99 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 02:50 PM 12/14/1999 , Christian Huitema wrote:
No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
routes in case of congestion. It is a problem that we are stuck with today,
that multi-address multi-homing actually gives us
Sure, I'm quite aware that there are many such tricks in use. I may even have helped
to commit one or two of them in my former life. But the architecture of name
resolution for IPv6 is as I described - if there are multiple records,
you get multiple answers and the host gets to choose.
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 3725
At 02:07 PM 12/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
Brain,
Looks like we have a temino
PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:26:59 -0500
To: Jessica Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime
Brian,
DNS doesn't make a choice. If there are multiple addresses,
it returns all of them. The host makes the choice.
Let me introduce you to today's current crop of DNS-based load balancing
"solutions". For example, from
http://www.resonate.com/products/global_dispatch/faqs.php3:
How does
Christian Huitema wrote:
The first SYN packet gets lost, and
the client simply picks another address in the list and tries again.
The APIs I've used don't tell me about lost SYN packets (thank goodness); they
only tell me if the connection has timed out.
So, yes, we have a problem. We need
At 04:29 PM 12/14/99 -0500, John Stracke wrote:
it only makes a difference if a
connection to a transit provider breaks,
Or if the chosen path becomes congested over time.
No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
routes in case of congestion. It is a
At 02:50 PM 12/14/1999 , Christian Huitema wrote:
No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
routes in case of congestion. It is a problem that we are stuck with today,
that multi-address multi-homing actually gives us the hope of solving.
Only minimally, as
At 02:50 PM 12/14/1999 , Christian Huitema wrote:
No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
routes in case of congestion. It is a problem that we are stuck with today,
that multi-address multi-homing actually gives us the hope of solving.
Only minimally,
Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: Sean Doran [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
In-reply-to: Your message of "Th
Keith Moore wrote:
and just because I have multiple devices in my home doesn't mean
that I trust my (roommate, spouse, kid, babysitter, houseguest,
burglar, landlord, friendly neighborhood cop) to have net access
to everything in my home merely by having physical presence there.
Download an
There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses
as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this
is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple
addresses.
I don't see why this is inherently a problem.
It's possible that some
There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses
as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this
is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple
addresses.
I don't see why this is inherently a problem.
it's a problem because
01:01 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address
assignments/allocations
information
Keith Moore wrote:
There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses
as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this
is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple
addresses.
I don't see why this is inherently a problem.
Sean Doran wrote:
...
Are you of the belief that
as a matter of policy, everyone but "top level" providers will have
addresses from a "top level" provider, with no exceptions?
Do you also beleive that for inter-TLA routing information-exchange
purposes, with respect to the destination
| so i had a nearby scheme interpreter
yay. (now go fix all the buggy scheme and lisp packages in -current :) :) :) )
| It seems obvious to me that the only way routing can scale with
| addresses this large is with very aggressive aggregation.
It would work better still with abstraction,
Ok, so it seems like there is a 1-1 mapping of TLAs to AS numbers --
in reality, with the current ipv6 allocation policy of the registries, all
asns are using the same single tla. it's one of those theory and practice
things.
randy
At 11:51 PM 12/9/99 +0100, Sean Doran wrote:
Even trickier: how to get non-local hosts to use them intelligently.
This is definitely a research issue. I think however that there are at
least three possible solutions, and so I believe that this is not a very
difficult research issue.
The first
At 09:34 08.12.99 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
So, perhaps the same company could also make a NAT that
any homeowner could use? Because if the problem of NATs is
easy of use, and this is the key being banged here (the NY School
Board example, etc.) then it is a problem of design. However,
if the
At 21:17 07.12.99 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
Sounds to me like at best I'd trade a NAT box with firewalling for a
serious firewall.
Right. Insecure devices require protection, always.
I have ZERO interest in allowing the kinds of things
you describe to occur from outside. While you may not
At 06:05 PM 12/7/99 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
randy,
just because routers meltdown from leaks and mis-configurations is not a
reasonable justification for ARIN's tight policies on IPv4 allocations,
which kim stated earlier was to keep space aggrigated for router memory
requirements, adding
Noel,
From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - let's try and
figure out
From: Yakov Rekhter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the fundamental architectural premise of NAT's *as we know them today*
- that there are no globally unique names at the internetwork level
I would say that the fundamental architectural premise of NATs is that
globally unique names
"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - let's try
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A /48 leaves 16 bits for subnetting, before you hit the 64 bits of flatspace.
And remember, if we ever need to, we can start subnetting the bottom
64 bits, at the loss of one form of stateless autoconf (which I'm
starting to find, in
Lloyd Wood wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Ed Gerck wrote:
The very concept of data needs thus to revisited. Suppose we define data as the
*difference* D2 - D1 that can be measured between two states of data systems.
Then, it can be shown that this difference can be measured by means of a
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
Jon Crowcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having said that, I ask you: What do you foresee as a realistic IPv6
transition plan? Dual stacks? I don't see it happening, to tell you
the truth. (Maybe this 6-in-4 stuff will actually help here.)
well, how about
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As more and more people switch to this configuration, they'll start
finding themselves talking to more and more things over the net
natively, and fewer and fewer through the translator. Suddenly,
they'll discover they *do* have globally
the idea is that IPv6 site renumbering will be so much easier than for
IPv4 that renumbering will be *less* painful than NATting.
this needs to be reconciled with the *much* more conservative statements on
v6 renumber-ability coming from respected v6 folk such as deering et alia.
randy
I'm not sure we're there yet in the support technology for renumbering.
We have good ideas but we haven't pushed them totally out the door yet.
However, we do have good ideas.
[ flame, not directed at you personally but at this thread ]
this is not the internet marketing task force.
get
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
get real. a LOT of folk have deployed nat, hundreds every day. it's easy.
it solves the customer's perception of their problem. it's not expensive.
It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
maintain it. And yes, I'm going by
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
get real. a LOT of folk have deployed nat, hundreds every day. it's easy.
it solves the customer's perception of their problem. it's not expensive.
It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
maintain it. And yes, I'm going by Actual Live Customer Experience In
Actual Live Large Companies.
if it were easy to show this we would not be discussing the topic
I don't know many companies who decide to do
Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
maintain it. And yes, I'm going by Actual Live Customer Experience In
Actual Live Large Companies.
The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
HUGE
I've generally been of the opinion that NAT is a very workable solution
for the small office and home network, and questionable for larger
networks. Sounds like you're saying the same.
The New York City Board of Education is using NATs as a security
measure to keep their 1000+ schools off of
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what we are talking about is the survival of the Internet.
you forgot the news at 11 part
Actually, to a large extent, the "internet" as "transparent end to end
catanet" *is* dead. It has been dead ever since the average company
was forced to use
From: Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
HUGE market, it is indeed cheap and easy to use. ... NAT can be used
for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's a good hammer
when the nail is a home
At 04:22 PM 12/7/99 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
HUGE market, it is indeed cheap and easy to use. ... NAT can be used
for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that
Perry Metzger announced:
| Actually, to a large extent, the "internet" as "transparent end to end
| catanet" *is* dead
^^^
What's a "transparent end to end catanet"?
Does that have anything to do with the networks with "hidden"
infrastructure in the discussion on translating internet
memory is cheap now, so lets loosen those thumb screws ;-)
i think we need an automaton to post a few things every few hours to this
and the nanog list.
it's not the memory. it's the processing power required which is quite
non-linear.
it's not the memory for the /24s in old b space, it's
NAT can be used for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's
a good hammer when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what
to do about the large corporation issue.
NAT is a good hammer for a home network if and only if the only
purpose of a home network is to allow
Keith Moore wrote:
NAT can be used for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's
a good hammer when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what
to do about the large corporation issue.
NAT is a good hammer for a home network if and only if the only
purpose of
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Keith Moore wrote:
OTOH, if you combine NAT with 6to4 for home networks, the
picture starts to look a bit better. Think of 6to4 as the
generic ALG that rids you of the need to have separate ALGs
for most of the applications that NAT happens to break.
Mine is not a
On 7 Dec 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Tripp Lilley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this really the "right" model for that sort of interaction?
Yes. I don't want to invent fifteen thousand different protocols to
handle things. IP already does what I need most of the time.
Perhaps I
Is this really the "right" model for that sort of interaction? Personally,
my home network (in which every light bulb *will* be on the 'net within
the year) is not something I want end-to-end connectivity to.
why not?
seems like if you want your light bulbs to be independently addressable
or
I think it makes sense to consider a boundary (firewall+ALG) that defines
a "trusted zone" within the house, establishes ACLs for a given
"connection", be it a tunnel or otherwise, defined by an authentication
event, and mediates the activity over that connection as long as it's
active.
At 10:05 PM 12/7/99 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Tripp Lilley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think NATs are architecturally "correct", but I think they're
teaching us an important lesson about the (initially valid) assumptions
about end to end connectivity. Even after we eradicate
I'm not advocating one technology over another. I am claiming that in the
IPV4/Private/Public/NAT world, a bigger pool of Private space would be a big
help to many organizations.
I think this is a fine idea. What we need is to reserve enough private
address space so that each organization
Perry,
Jon Crowcroft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having said that, I ask you: What do you foresee as a realistic IPv6
transition plan? Dual stacks? I don't see it happening, to tell you
the truth. (Maybe this 6-in-4 stuff will actually help here.)
well, how about we just start to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yakov Rekhter typed:
Consider an alternative where the client decides to use IPv6. Granted,
the client could get enough IPv6 addresses for all purposes, regardless of
whether these purposes essential or not. But then in order for that
client to communicate
btw, i think the address space stuff for subscribers using NATs is often
(not always) hokum - its
mostly that they can't be bothered to design a decent addressing
architecture for their intranets.
cheers
jon
Oh, I think that there are lots of good engineers out there who do a great
Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then again, I would expect that a large corporation would see the need
to own a large address space, rather than attempting to "pseudo-expand" its
address space through the use of NAT.
You are assuming they could get such a space. They can't. No one can
From: "Perry E. Metzger" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When you've been awakened in the middle of the night every night for a
week, because the NAT rules to deal with the fact that you have several
intercommunicating networks all of which think they're 10.0.0.0/8
... Anyone out
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
BTW, I fully agree with those who contend that v6 does not solve the
route agregation problems we have in v4.
In itself, no; but getting people who have old non-aggregatable addresses to
transition to v6 will give them the chance to get aggregatable addresses, won't
John Stracke wrote:
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
BTW, I fully agree with those who contend that v6 does not solve the
route agregation problems we have in v4.
In itself, no; but getting people who have old non-aggregatable addresses to
transition to v6 will give them the chance to get
Daniel Senie wrote:
Some folks are doing this for dialups too. It's the model for
"home networking" today. Will ISPs be willing to assign a block of
addresses in the future to home networks?
Today, they are not, because they want to make that a premium service.
However, one day, they may
Perry E. Metzger
Cc: J. Noel Chiappa; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address
assignments/allocations information?
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
If you mean RSIP, RSIP is even further
from deployment than
v6. Indeed, I'd say that RSIP is a
clever but utterly dead end idea.
I t
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Noel Chiappa" typed:
The various approaches to growing the Internet (IPv6, NAT's, etc) all have
costs and benefits -
yes, but propviders don't actually ASK the users what the COST is of a
NAT
the BT ADSL trial in london uses NATs and all the folks i know
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, let's not focus on Bill's data. Frankly, I haven't seen any data
on this topic from any source that really convinces me that it
means much. All I know is that we have thousands of sites using
private address space, which completely falsifies
"Fleischman, Eric W" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) If we effectively ran out of addresses when RFC 1597 was
published, has running out of addresses hurt us in any way?
I count "hurt" in dollars. The answer is yes. A client of mine just
spent millions of dollars because of our current broken
Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And yes, additional IP addresses were going to cost dramatically more. NAT
was a simple case of economics... but on the other hand, I don't experience
any "lack" because of it.
You aren't a large corporation trying to deal with huge numbers of
private
be re-engineered so that it does. -- Ian
-Original Message-
From: Perry E. Metzger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 2:54 PM
To: Ian King
Cc: 'Richard Shockey'; Keith Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information
Perry,
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, let's not focus on Bill's data. Frankly, I haven't seen any data
on this topic from any source that really convinces me that it
means much. All I know is that we have thousands of sites using
private address space, which
John,
You are absolutely right. Time should be spent developing "good
algorithms" which is common "good architecture". What NAT does is just
another form of the same thing that X.25, ATM, and MPLS do with different
identifiers. It is not bad algorithm there nor bad architecture.
This is
At 22:52 30.11.99 -0500, John Day wrote:
At 18:12 -0500 11/30/99, Mark Atwood wrote:
John Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Correct. Lets get an application name space so we don't need to worry
about it.
Please gods below, not more ASN.1
What a strange reaction!? What does an arcane
*
* I don't believe this argument, John. The IP address is (part of) the
* transport layer end point address, something that an application can
* reasonably be expected to know about in the existing Internet
* architecture.
*
* Unfortunately the existing Internet is no
At 11:50 -0500 12/1/99, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Bob,
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* The problem is not to make applications "NAT aware" or "NAT
friendly". The
* problem is to make applications "IP address unaware". What is an
* application doing exchanging and using names for things 2
At 7:06 -0500 12/1/99, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
At 22:52 30.11.99 -0500, John Day wrote:
At 18:12 -0500 11/30/99, Mark Atwood wrote:
John Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Correct. Lets get an application name space so we don't need to worry
about it.
Please gods below, not more
John Day wrote:
Cmon, surely you can come up with a better counterargument than that! ;-))
I certainly could. If it is architecturally acceptable for those protocols
to rewrite the address field at every hop, why shouldn't it be for IP? How
does it differ? Basically a NAT is doing what
Everyone, this conversation isn't really going to be very productive. The
people who like A aren't about to start liking B, and vice versa. (And then
there are the people who don't like either - but they aren't going to change
their minds either! :-) So discussion on this point is not going to be
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:45:17 PST, Ian King said:
any "lack" because of it. I don't play UDP-based games or employ any of the
other relatively new protocols that are so sensitive to end-to-end-ness
(should they be? was that a valid assumption?), so a NAT is a great solution
Well.. Urm... TCP
Hi Tony,
Well, the statement below is not true -- I sit behind a NAT/PAT
device and Real PLayer works just fine for me. I've only found a
couple of applications that will not work for me (e.g. ICQ, NTP,
SNMP), but then again, I'm not a gamer so I can't speak to the
broader range of applications
And yes, additional IP addresses were going to cost dramatically more. NAT
was a simple case of economics... but on the other hand, I don't experience
any "lack" because of it. I don't play UDP-based games or employ any of the
other relatively new protocols that are so sensitive to
Paul Ferguson wrote:
Hi Tony,
Well, the statement below is not true -- I sit behind a NAT/PAT
device and Real PLayer works just fine for me. I've only found a
couple of applications that will not work for me (e.g. ICQ, NTP,
SNMP), but then again, I'm not a gamer so I can't speak to the
The NAT problems only
start when the protocol carries IP address/port information (such
as the FTP 'PORT' command), and the NAT isn't aware of that protocol's
translation requirements
this is a popular misconception; it's a bit like saying that y2k
only breaks programs that store years in
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Brian E Carpenter' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pete Loshin [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
1) Yes ... We have been forced into a world
with that mindset.
ssh
Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/30/99 05:10 AM
To:Tony Hain (Exchange) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Hi Tony,
Well, the statement below is not true -- I sit
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yes, additional IP addresses were going to cost dramatically more. NAT
was a simple case of economics... but on the other hand, I don't experience
any "lack" because of it. I don't play UDP-based games or employ any of
the
other relatively
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any event, I've always personally been of the opinion that
if applications don't work in the face of NAT, then the
applications themselves are functionally deficient and should be
fixed. :-)
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you about that,
but
*
* I'll grant FTP an exemption, it came well before NAT units became
* prevalent (Was there an FTP-over-NCP before The Great IP Deployment?).
There certainly was. FTP and Telnet were both ARPANET NCP protocols
in use since ~1972.
Bob Braden
* However, I do agree that anybody
Title: RE: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Valdis,
This is the kind of BS that keeps these debates running. NAT problems exist anytime a connection originates on the public side and there is not a preexisting clear mapping to the private side. I didn't pick on Real
John Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Correct. Lets get an application name space so we don't need to worry
about it.
Please gods below, not more ASN.1
--
Mark Atwood |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra |
At 18:12 -0500 11/30/99, Mark Atwood wrote:
John Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Correct. Lets get an application name space so we don't need to worry
about it.
Please gods below, not more ASN.1
What a strange reaction!? What does an arcane syntax notation have to do
with Shoch's
*
* The problem is not to make applications "NAT aware" or "NAT friendly". The
* problem is to make applications "IP address unaware". What is an
* application doing exchanging and using names for things 2 layers below it?
* Sounds like a design for trouble if I ever heard of one.
---
From: Brian E Carpenter[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 1:35 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Bill Manning; Pete Loshin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Well, let's not focus on Bill's data.
As the original instigator of this thread, I want to thank everyone for
their assistance, as well as for the thought-provoking discussions that
have ensued. They have all been very helpful.
As a sort of follow-on question, I've been scrutinizing the delegations
listed here:
Steve Hultquist wrote:
...
I also think
that it's interesting to consider that security concerns are the other
primary reason for use of NAT.
As had been repeatedly pointed out, this is a totally bogus argument
for NAT. Filtering routers were around long before NAT, and protect
systems
At 07:02 PM 11/29/1999 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
Many of the people who have deployed NATs are responding directly to the
address scarcity (and resultant cost). If you consider that many ISPs now
have different pricing models for multiple IP addresses than they do for a
single (regardless
Ian
-Original Message-
From: Richard Shockey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:00 PM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
At 07:02 PM 11/29/1999 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
Many of the peop
At 15:35 99-11-26 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, let's not focus on Bill's data. Frankly, I haven't seen any data
on this topic from any source that really convinces me that it
means much. All I know is that we have thousands of sites using
sorry, many many many thousands of sites. for
Hi. I'm trying to track down some information about IP network address
allocations/assignments. Specifically, I'm looking for some reasonable
estimate of the number/proportion of Class B/Class C networks that have
been assigned out of the entire amount possible.
The allocation of address space
Pete Loshin wrote:
Hi. I'm trying to track down some information about IP network address
allocations/assignments. Specifically, I'm looking for some reasonable
estimate of the number/proportion of Class B/Class C networks that have
been assigned out of the entire amount possible.
The
www.isi.edu/~bmanning/in-addr-audit.html
It does not cover specific /16 /24 delegations, it just looks at
all of the SOA entries. Still, it does give a representation of how much
space is delegated.
uh, as these data appear to be the statistics of an attempt to walk the
dns
All I know is that we have thousands of sites using private address space,
which completely falsifies any real data and makes it impossible to attach
any real meaning to concepts such as "running out of addresses".
the original question was not whether address panic was justified. it asked
95 matches
Mail list logo
