> > > The lack of IPv6 literal address support in the version of wininet.dll
> > > that shipped with Windows XP was for reasons of engineering
> > > expediency,
> >
> > in other words, MS deliberately shipped a broken product.
>
> Oh, look, release notes, known issue statements, bugtracker entri
Jeroen Massar wrote:
John Stracke wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines
are connected via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire,
or similar.
In any other way do you like remembering and typing over 128bit
addresses?? :)
> The lack of IPv6 literal address support in the version of wininet.dll
> that shipped with Windows XP was for reasons of engineering
> expediency,
in other words, MS deliberately shipped a broken product.
> I do, however, also remember a discussion on one of the IPv6 mailing
> lists about this
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Ad-hoc networks are another similar case, where two machines
are connected via ad-hoc wireless, bluetooth, firewire,
or similar.
In any other way do you like remembering and typing over 128bit
addresses?? :)
:: is your friend. If you're building an ad hoc, point-to-poin
> of course it is possible to write apps that do not use DNS, but this is
> rarely done.
why not just embed the ip addresses in the data payloads? death to
nats! :-)
> (i) RFC 2821 can be read (and was intended to be read)
> to prohibit the use of an address literal in a HELO or
> EHLO command unless the relevant host has no DNS name.
> (sections 3.6, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.4)
these days it's sort of odd to think that a host has a distinguished D
> > > There was some discussion about this deprecation as the
> > > Techpreviews (Win2k/NT4) did support literal url's.
> > > The XP version and up though won't support it to overcome
> > > one major 'problem': website 'designers' embedding IP's
> > > inside websites to 'speed things up' (go figure
> There was some discussion about this deprecation as the
> Techpreviews (Win2k/NT4) did support literal url's.
> The XP version and up though won't support it to overcome
> one major 'problem': website 'designers' embedding IP's
> inside websites to 'speed things up' (go figure).
perfectly reason
> Sounds like you both are arguing that the DNS has become
> "embedded" and the applications that use IP are unusable
> without a working DNS.
as a practical matter, this was true even in IPv4. yes, you can
often use address literals in either v4 or v6 apps, but this isn't
pr
> > Are the apps for which IPv6 is enabled that -can not-
> > use address literals? If so, then Steve is wrong and
> > the DNS has become critical infrastructure to the working
> > of the Internet.
>
> anyone who believes that the DNS is not critical infrastructure for just
> abo
--On tirsdag, april 01, 2003 11:33:46 -0800 Bill Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are the apps for which IPv6 is enabled that -can not-
use address literals? If so, then Steve is wrong and
the DNS has become critical infrastructure to the working
of the Intern
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Bill Manning wrote:
> Are the apps for which IPv6 is enabled that -can not-
> use address literals?
There are a few.
Mostly cauzed by lazy porting, and optimizing at the first stage for the
masses only (ie., changing the API to use getaddrinfo, but if there are
s
on 3/31/2003 11:01 AM Bill Manning wrote:
> Is may be worth noting that RIRs have -NEVER- made presumptions
> on routability of the delegations they make.
Probably more accurate to say that they have never guaranteed routability.
They make all kinds of presumptions about routability.
> > actually it's bad to force all apps to use DNS names - which are
> > often less reliable, slower, less correct, and more ambiguous
> > than IP addresses.
>
> This is like saying it's bad to force people to use
> cars/busses/whatever because they occasionally break, and everyone
> s
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I've dealt with many companies interconnecting where both use RFC1918
space -- NAT is the first thing discussed. You forget, these people are
connecting for a _business reason_ and there is real money to be lost if
they mess up.
And how much real money do they lose by hav
Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Of course, in the case of site-local addresses, you don't
know for sure that you reached the _correct_ peer, unless you
know for sure that the node you want to reach is in your
site.
Since the address block is ambiguous, routing will assure t
> > > I believe that you have misunderstood my point... I'll try
> > > to explain further, although our friends in the applications
> > > area may be able to give better examples.
> > >
> > > Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If
> > > another node in SiteA (NodeA) is commun
> This has nothing to do with sitelocal but more with the
> fact that a host can have multiple paths from A to B: internet ;)
multiple paths does not imply multiple addresses.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:12:51 -0600
"Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > All right, how do you make internal site communications completely
> > > oblivious to a change in your externally-visible routing prefix?
> >
> > You declare that any app that keeps connections around for more tha
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:03 -0600
"Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If another
> > node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a multi-party application
> > to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants to refer NodeB to the FooBar
> > ser
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:43:38 -0600
"Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All things SL is claimed to solve are solveable with unique
> > addresses too, as long as you've got enough of them. The rest is
> > just simple (perhaps tedious) work that every operations-aware
> > person I know of
> > > Indeed, correctly coded applications will use a getaddrinfo()
> > > and then a connect() in a loop until succesful.
> >
> > it's perfectly reasonable to connect to an address without first
> > doing a DNS lookup.
>
> I think nobody can't help you if you are using hardcoded IP's.
> The onl
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:51:10 -0800
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > Of course, in the case of site-local addresses, you don't
> > know for sure that you reached the _correct_ peer, unless you
> > know for sure that the node you want to reach is in your
> >
> > Well, that is emphatically *NOT* what application developers
> > do. They do not just observe that it does not work, they try
> > to work around, e.g. routing messages to a different address,
> > at a different time, through a third party, or through a
> > different protocol.
>
> Indeed, cor
--On Monday, March 31, 2003 12:17:44 -0800 Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Since the address block is ambiguous, routing will assure that if you
>> reach a node it is the correct one. This FUD needs to stop!
>
>
> Right up till the point where two companies start communicating with on
Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Of course, in the case of site-local addresses, you don't
know for sure that you reached the _correct_ peer, unless you
know for sure that the node you want to reach is in your
site.
Since the address block is ambiguous, routing will assure that if
> > applications cannot be expected to deal with filters in any way
> > other than to report that the communication is prohibited. the
> > "well known" flag exists and is called ICMP.
>
> Well, that is emphatically *NOT* what application developers do. They
> do not just observe that it does not
> My arguments are more about acknowledging the reality and requirements
> of the deployed architecture than they are about creating a special
> case.
Tony,
your arguments are an attempt to perpetuate costly mistakes that provide
little or no value. you are not acknowledging reality, you are de
> Tony is right -- any registration process costs resources.
agreed, though the cost of registering a domain name should serve as a useful
upper bound. at least with address blocks you don't have to worry about I18N,
trademark infringement, etc.
> But, if these addresses are assumed to be not
> > Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
> > automagically with each DNS registration?
>
> Routing Table Bloat. If you can figure out how to do this in a CIDR
> aggregation context, or otherwise work around the table problem, the
> IETF and NANOG will quite certainly jo
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
automagically with each DNS registration?
--On Friday, March 28, 2003 10:36 AM -0800 Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Tony,
I've been trying to get my mind around the various issues here,
and I keep gettin
31 matches
Mail list logo
