Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I persist in thinking that those 32-bit names are continuing their evolution
> into local-scope names, with translation at naming region boundaries. How can
> we improve that - reduce the brittleness of the middleboxes you refer to, by
> making their data more visible (and th
> From: "cb.list6"
> the emergent complex dynamical system we call the internet ... which is
> almost completely zero compliant to the e2e principle. Not that e2e is
> the wrong principle, but ipv4 could not support it as of 10+ years ago.
> Hence, nearly every internet node i
On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:28 -0400 Warren Kumari
> wrote:
>> ...
>>> It turns out that as soon as you envisage a network in which
>>> some nodes only support 32 bit addresses and other nodes
>>> can't get a globally unique 32 bit address
--On Saturday, June 01, 2013 11:28 -0400 Warren Kumari
wrote:
>...
> I *really* want to make sure that my CEO always gets the same
> address, and want him to be assigned specific DNS servers and
> use a certain gateway. The folk who manage the DHCP are the
> "Internal Services Infrastructure Gr
On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> On the technical side, I believe that there was a general belief
> in 1993 that we would be able to map out a unified, clear, transition
> strategy for IPv6 and give simple advice about it.
John is correct in terms of belief (but perhaps a bit
cb.list6 wrote:
> I think there is something here that is interesting, and that is the
> interplay between paper design, evolution, and ultimately the emergent
> complex dynamical system we call the internet ... which is almost
> completely zero compliant to the e2e principle. Not that e2e is the
Arturo Servin wrote:
> Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
> tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
> was not as important as a central port to give IP address.
A merit to have the central server is that you don't have to
w
On Jun 1, 2013 11:52 AM, "John C Klensin" wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I really need to stop posting to this thread -- I have other
> things to do and I don't believe the conversation is leading to
> anything actionable. Second-guessing is fairly useless at this
> point and there are at least a few thin
Brian,
I really need to stop posting to this thread -- I have other
things to do and I don't believe the conversation is leading to
anything actionable. Second-guessing is fairly useless at this
point and there are at least a few things that we know in
retrospect that we couldn't have known in 19
On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush
>> wrote:
>>
>>> < rant >
>>>
>>> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
>>> listening to the (ops) customer. l
> I was working on TCP/IP, Novell and AppleTalk nets in the mid 90s and
> as network engineers we hated to maintain a database of static IP
> addresses for users, and we loved how AT for example was totally
> automatic (IPX was in the middle because we also hated the long addresses).
>
> But any h
Arturo Servin wrote:
> No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
> db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
> the same IP to two or three different hosts.
So, it's like HOSTS.TXT.
> It was a nightmare.
Yes, it was.
> With IPX
Kind of.
Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
was not as important as a central port to give IP address. So both
solutions would seem useful to me at that time (as I said I wa
No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
the same IP to two or three different hosts. It was a nightmare.
With IPX, AT address assignment was automatic. No DHCP in those old
times.
Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Even at that time and even on small end user LANs, it is
>> better to let the gateway manage the address configuration
>> state in centralized fashion than to have, so called, SLAAC,
>> which is full of address configuration state, which is
>> maintained in fully distribute
Masataka,
On 6/1/13 6:51 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
>> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
>> "dumb" devices that only need to know their network and gateway
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
>> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea,
Doug Barton wrote:
> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
> "dumb" devices that only need to know their network and gateway to be
> happy.
Wrong.
Even at that time and even on small end
On 05/31/2013 09:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It was more complicated. I was actually running a team that ran site
network ops at the time, and (since DHCP was not yet deployable),
IPv4 was then a serious nuisance to manage, compared say to Novell
Netware and, even, Appletalk. There were good
John C Klensin wrote:
> Similarly, various applications folks within the IETF have
> pointed out repeatedly that any approach that assigns multiple
> addresses, associated with different networks and different
> policies and properties, either requires the applications to
> understand those polici
On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush
> wrote:
>
>> < rant >
>>
>> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
>> listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
>> out of ipv6. the end user, and the op,
--On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush
wrote:
> < rant >
>
> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
> listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made
> out of ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute
> minimal change and cost, let me g
Warren Kumari wrote:
Unfortunately the was a bad case of creeping featuritis and we got:
A new, and unfortunately very complex way of resolving L2 addresses.
You may use ARP (and DHCP) with IPv6.
Extension headers that make it so you cannot actually forward
> packets in modern hardware
> (
On May 31, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> < rant >
>
> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
> listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
> ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
> cost, let me get an ipv6
amen! :)
On 31May2013Friday, at 17:23, Randy Bush wrote:
> < rant >
>
> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
> listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
> ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
> cost, let me g
< rant >
the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
listening to the (ops) customer. look at the cf we have made out of
ipv6. the end user, and the op, want the absolute minimal change and
cost, let me get an ipv6 allocation from the integer rental monopoly,
flip a switch or
26 matches
Mail list logo
