> and drive right into the bay over that bridge
> that your GPS insists exists.
My GPS has no knowledge of bridges. I look out the window to see if there
are any obstacles. I just follow drivable paths in the general direction of
the heading shown on my GPS until I arrive. It is surprisingly e
%
% > Ever given a thought on the amount of effort explorers,
% > cartographrs, road builders, maintainers have put into
% > supplying you with the routing info you need to route
% > your car?
%
% No. I just set the coordinates in my GPS and follow the arrow. No map
% required.
%
and drive r
> Trying to dismiss a technical problem with a
> facile analogy that is not relevant is not a way
> to pursuade.
Logically, then, calling the analogy "stupid," or saying "we looked at it
and decided it wouldn't work," is even less so.
In any case, I have no objective to persuade. I'm sure that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 3:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?
>
> I wonder how h
> Because their cars move *much* slower than packets.
So do their brains.
> This is a stupid argument. An IP packet (for instance)
> relies on external decision-making (the router) while
> a car has an intelligent (or at least decision-making)
> human inside, making the "car+human" unit self-supporting
> in terms of route decision.
So?
> Ever given a thought on the amount of effort explorers,
> cartographrs, road builders, maintainers have put into
> supplying you with the routing info you need to route
> your car?
No. I just set the coordinates in my GPS and follow the arrow. No map
required.
At 6:44 -0400 8/12/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>> Let me try and say this kindly (since after it is
>> pointed out several hundred times it gets quite
>> frustrating). If you don't see the processing
>> requirements then you have *no* understanding of how
>> routing works.
>
>You need not go to
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Loa Andersson wrote:
> > I wonder how human beings manage to route their cars from one point to
> > another, given how much more slowly they process things than do routers.
>
> Ever given a thought on the amount of effort explorers, cartographrs,
> road builders, maintainer
"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
>
> In message <003b01c003c6$3ffe9230$0a0a@contactdish>, "Anthony Atkielski" wr
> ites:
> >> The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds
> >> to resolve an address into a route. The Internet
> >> has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
> >
> >Build faster h
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I wonder how human beings manage to route their cars from one point to
> another, given how much more slowly they process things than do routers.
This is a stupid argument. An IP packet (for instance) relies on
external decision-making (the router) while a car has an i
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> I wonder how human beings manage to route their cars from one point to
> another, given how much more slowly they process things than do routers.
Ever given a thought on the amount of effort explorers, cartographrs,
road builders, maintainers have put into supplying
> Let me try and say this kindly (since after it is
> pointed out several hundred times it gets quite
> frustrating). If you don't see the processing
> requirements then you have *no* understanding of how
> routing works.
You need not go to great pains to be "kind" about it. This is a pretty
st
ECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?
>
>
> > We seem to be talking 5-6 orders of magnitude in
> > speed here. Even Moore's Law doesn't help in that range.
>
> I don't see why all this processing power is required. You look at
If IPv4 multihoming is leading to exponential growth of the routing
tables, maybe that's what will kill IPv4 and push people to IPv6. My
understanding is that in IPv6 things are better because, to some
extent, you can multihome by having multiple addresses assigned by
your different providers.
> We seem to be talking 5-6 orders of magnitude in
> speed here. Even Moore's Law doesn't help in that range.
I don't see why all this processing power is required. You look at the
incoming address, you figure out which outbound path can handle that
address, and you forward it. Simple. Even i
% On the other hand even doing
% nothing will be a problem - we appear to have resumed exponential
% growth of the routing system again, presumably as multi-homing at
% the edges starts to be more and more common.
%
%Geoff Huston
As predicted back in the cidr development days. people multi
In message <003b01c003c6$3ffe9230$0a0a@contactdish>, "Anthony Atkielski" wr
ites:
>> The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds
>> to resolve an address into a route. The Internet
>> has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
>
>Build faster hardware.
>
>
We seem to be talking 5-6 orders
> Does this mean that every router will have to handle 2^48 routing table
> entries and that this vast amount of information must be sent over the
> internet on every routing table update?
> Salavat
In a word, no.
In two words, Hell no!
See RFC 2374.
Try reading one of the books on Internet routing, there are
several good ones.
Brian
At 04:40 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>Look at it this way. We have about 75K routes in the "default-free
>zone" now.
No - that was March 2000 - now we have about 87,000 (www.telstra.net/ops/bgp)
> If we just assigned addresses sequentially, we'd need a
>route for every endpo
At 19:38 -0400 8/10/00, Fred Baker wrote:
>At 01:33 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Corzine, Gordie wrote:
>>Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map
>>to routing information however we may code it?
>
>well, that is essentially what has happened in the telephone network, at
>l
"Salavat R. Magazov" wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Corzine, Gordie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:30 PM
> Subj
> Phone numbers have moved from being direct as originally implemented
> to being a level of indirection, thanks to a lot of behind-the-scenes
> mucking about. The Internet introduced DNS to gain that same level of
> indirection. Phone numbers are now portable; DNS names are portable.
I don't agr
Hello
What is the difference between plain address (I mean house address like 47
Ulcombe gardens, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom) and IP address. The
former is scalable to whatever size one may want and the router for plain
address (i.e. post office in USA, for example) does not have to know ab
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Corzine, Gordie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?
> "Corzine
> The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds
> to resolve an address into a route. The Internet
> has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
Build faster hardware.
Fred Baker asks:
| When I build a telephone out of an IP dialler attached to
| someone's waist, a modulator on their necklace, and an earphone attached to
| their earring, all connected by IP on BlueTooth, what addresses do I put on
| the different components of the telephone?
RFC-1918 for a
John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| To do nothing can be far more dangerous (as proven by the disdain for NAT).
The disdain for NAT is non-uniform. Personally, I rather like NAT.
| Can IPv6 be worse for the net than NAT?
IPv6 and IPv4 will coexist for a time; the topology of the (la
At 04:57 AM 8/11/00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I have an idea: Let's merge IP addresses with telephone numbers. A person
>will have one IP address for each telephone number he owns, and vice versa,
>and the two numbers will be the same.
great idea. When I build a telephone out of an IP di
Sean;
> Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:
>
> | > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago. Why
> | > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
> |
> | The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
>
At 11:43 PM -0400 8/10/00, Vijay Gill wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
> > > how to do that. We have to make routing scale, and
> > > that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
> > > structured addresses.
>
Sean, I agree with you. I was trying to make it simple.
Brian
Sean Doran wrote:
>
> Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:
>
> | > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago. Why
> | > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:
| > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago. Why
| > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
|
| The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
| into a route. The
"Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
> Look, my days as an engineer are a distant memory, so I won't try to work
> this out in detail. Maybe there are irrefutable reasons why this can't be
> done, but I do believe the current architecture will lead to premature
> exhaustion of the address space.
It will tak
"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
>
> This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given
> to
> every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we
> would
> consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.
>
> that's what they said about never
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> > The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
> > how to do that. We have to make routing scale, and
> > that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
> > structured addresses.
>
> The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago. Why
>
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> Brian Carpenter writes:
>
> > This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable
> > prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
> > world population of 11 billion, we would
> > consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address
> > space.
>
> Surely you recall th
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Rakers, Jason wrote:
> This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was
> given to every human, using a predicted world population of 11
> billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address
> space.
>
> that's what they said about never ne
emory in a
computer..
we'll never need more than that!
Jason
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 4:31 PM
> To: Corzine, Gordie
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Seque
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
> > how to do that. We have to make routing scale, and
> > that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
> > structured addresses.
>
> The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems
> *No one* knows how to do it any differently.
I have an idea: Let's merge IP addresses with telephone numbers. A person
will have one IP address for each telephone number he owns, and vice versa,
and the two numbers will be the same. Because the identifying number of a
telephone is open-ended
> As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs to
> for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
> address assignment.
don't believe everything you read on the IETF list.
> Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and
> The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
> how to do that. We have to make routing scale, and
> that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
> structured addresses.
The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago. Why
the computer industry has to rediscover t
Brian Carpenter writes:
> This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable
> prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
> world population of 11 billion, we would
> consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address
> space.
Surely you recall the quotation attributed to Thomas J. Watson: "T
At 01:33 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Corzine, Gordie wrote:
>Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map
>to routing information however we may code it?
well, that is essentially what has happened in the telephone network, at
least the wireless portion of it. Your telephone
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Cor
zine, Gordie" writes:
>Using the IP address, you index into a table with 100 M entries, pick up an
>index into the 75K entry routing table. You now have two tables that
>require maintenance, that's all. If customer changes ISP, their entry in
>the first table
Using the IP address, you index into a table with 100 M entries, pick up an
index into the 75K entry routing table. You now have two tables that
require maintenance, that's all. If customer changes ISP, their entry in
the first table is changed. Link is down, the second table's mechanisms
handl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Cor
zine, Gordie" writes:
>Seriously,
>
>As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs to
>for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
>address assignment.
>
>Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses f
"Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
>
> Seriously,
>
> As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs to
> for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
> address assignment.
This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
every human,
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:33:43 EDT, "Corzine, Gordie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map
> to routing information however we may code it? The memory and processor
> steps required would be trivial compared to the agony of running
Seriously,
As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs to
for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
address assignment.
Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map
to routing information however we may code it
52 matches
Mail list logo
