What I find interesting throughout discussions that mention IPv6 as a solution for a
shortage of addresses in IPv4 is that people
see the problems with IPv4, but they don't realize that IPv6 will run into the same
difficulties. _Any_ addressing scheme that uses
addresses of fixed length will
I agree! Why create a finite anything when an infinite possibility exists?
On another note, I have heard the argument that a unique identifier already
exists in the form of a MAC address why not make further use of it?
David H
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL
IPv6 is designed to be compatible with IPv4?
If what you suggest should be implemented, then probably
the entire software of all the switches and hubs need to be
upgraded (if not entirely scrapped) .
As also everytime the source and destination addresses are
upgraded, all the systems and the
In message BB2831D3689AD211B14C00104B14623B1E7569@HAZEN04, "David A Higginbot
ham" writes:
I agree! Why create a finite anything when an infinite possibility exists?
On another note, I have heard the argument that a unique identifier already
exists in the form of a MAC address why not make
[Keith Moore on a "KMart box"]
| take it home, plug it in to your phone line or whatever, and get
| instant internet for all of the computers in your home.
| (almost just like NATs today except that you get static IP addresses).
No, not "or whatever" but "AND whatever".
Otherwise this is a
"Near-perfect example"? I beg to differ. I used to work for a Local
Exchange Carrier.
The telephone number situation in the United States has been one of
continual crisis for years, because of rapid growth in use (in part because
of Internet access!). The area served by a given "area code"
--- Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be useful to point out more clearly the common characteristics
of protocols that are broken by NATs. These include, in particular,
protocols that use one connection to establish another data flow. Such
protocols include ftp, SIP and
At 4:32 PM +0200 4/24/00, Sean Doran wrote:
Unfortunately, IPv6's current addressing architecture makes it very
difficult to do this sort of traditional multihoming if one is not
a TLA. This is a significant step backward from the current IPv4
situation, where one can persuade various operators
Ian King wrote:
"Near-perfect example"? I beg to differ. I used to work for a Local
Exchange Carrier.
The telephone number situation in the United States has been one of
continual crisis for years, because of rapid growth in use (in part because
of Internet access!). The area served
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed, I
think we should get together a group of people to patent all the
architecturally bad ideas (call it the "RSI group"), as they'll appear
sooner or later. That will give us 20 years of respite...
...provided somebody pays the legal fees to enforce the
Ian King wrote:
I'd suggest that address assignment
policy should keep process lightweight, so that it is realistic for
businesses to regularly ask for assignments in more granular chunks; rather
than grabbing a class A-size space "just in case", big users would be
willing to request
The telephone number situation in the United States has been one of
continual crisis for years, because of rapid growth in use (in part because
of Internet access!). The area served by a given "area code" would be
split
into smaller areas with multiple area codes; these days, those
[Keith Moore on a "KMart box"]
| take it home, plug it in to your phone line or whatever, and get
| instant internet for all of the computers in your home.
| (almost just like NATs today except that you get static IP addresses).
No, not "or whatever" but "AND whatever".
Otherwise this
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this the function of IP?
-Scot Mc Pherson, N2UPA
-Sr. Network Analyst
-ClearAccess Communications
-Ph: 941.744.5757 ext. 210
-Fax: 941.744.0629
-mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-http://www.clearaccess.net
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message BB2831D3689AD211B14C00104B14623B1E7569@HAZEN04, "David A Higginbot
ham" writes:
I agree! Why create a finite anything when an infinite possibility exists?
On another note, I have heard the argument that a unique identifier already
exists in
*
* I can remember early TCP/IP implementations that used class A
* addressing only, with the host portion of the Enet MAC address as the
* host portion of the IP address - "because ARP is too hard" or
* something like that. I think the first Suns did this.
*
* --
Dick,
Right
Keith Moore wrote:
it's not at all clear to me why households need traditional multihoming,
nor how to make it feasible for households to have it. so I would regard
this as overdesign of the home 'internet interface box'
Now that I've got a decent DSL provider, I've found that the least
Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this the function of IP?
No, it turns out that what they mean by UNL is an artificial human language, a
common intermediary that any human text can be translated into; they postulate
translation servers that know how to translate between
A couple of routing points, not related to NAT:
From: Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
so that it is realistic for businesses to regularly ask for assignments
in more granular chunks; rather than grabbing a class A-size space
"just in case", big users would be willing to request
| it's not at all clear to me why households need traditional multihoming,
| nor how to make it feasible for households to have it. so I would regard
| this as overdesign of the home 'internet interface box'
Three observations:
1.
In the past, when and if large arrogant
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:08:40 EDT, John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No, it turns out that what they mean by UNL is an artificial human language, a
common intermediary that any human text can be translated into; they postulate
translation servers that know how to translate between UNL and
What I find interesting throughout discussions that mention IPv6 as a
solution for a shortage of addresses in IPv4 is that people see the
problems with IPv4, but they don't realize that IPv6 will run into the
same difficulties. _Any_ addressing scheme that uses addresses of
fixed length
Users shouldn't care or know about the network's internal addressing.
Some of the application issues with NATs spring directly from this issue
(e.g. user of X-terminal setting display based on IP address instead of
DNS name).
it's not the same issue. the point of using IP addresses in
If what you suggest should be implemented, then
probably the entire software of all the switches
and hubs need to be upgraded (if not entirely scrapped) .
That's what has to be done, anyway. I'm not sure that I see what you are
saying.
As also everytime the source and destination addresses
But the first thing to remember is that there are
tradeoffs. Yes, infinitely long addresses are nice,
but they're much harder to store in programs (you
can no longer use a simple fixed-size structure for
any tuple that includes an address) ...
Sure you can. You just allocated the fixed
its ironic you should send this today, when 12
million people in london, england, had to learn
to dial 8 digits instead of 7 because of lack
of foresight from the telephone regualtor when
re-numbering less than a decade ago ...
France has increased the number of digits in telephone numbers
I totally agree with you - at least there should be a choice either user or
content induced - to translate or not to translate. Also one must think of
the possibility of how much the translation service or program will become
another point of failure - or even a security issue.
Lillian Komlossy
I agree! Why create a finite anything when an infinite
possibility exists?
Exactly. If you designed an open-ended protocol, you're far less likely to
ever have to rewrite it.
On another note, I have heard the argument that
a unique identifier already exists in the form of
a MAC address
The telephone number situation in the United States
has been one of continual crisis for years, because
of rapid growth in use (in part because of Internet
access!). The area served by a given "area code" would
be split into smaller areas with multiple area codes;
these days, those areas
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:06:21 -0400
From: John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it's not at all clear to me why households need traditional multihoming,
nor how to make it feasible for households to have it. so I would regard
this as overdesign of the home 'internet interface box'
Keith Moore wrote:
if by that time the robot population exceeds the human population then
I'm happy to let the robots solve the problem of upgrading to a new
version of IP.
Ah--the Iron Man's Burden. :-)
--
/\
|John Stracke
making each house a TLA does not strike me as a scalable multihoming
solution for very large numbers of houses, given the current state of
the routing art.
The restriction has little to do with the current state of the routing art
(which is not to say that better
From: "Keith Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suppose that's true - as long as addresses are consumed
at a rate faster than they are recycled. But the fact that
we will run out of addresses eventually might not be terribly
significant - the Sun will also run out of hydrogen
eventually, but in
Users shouldn't care or know about the network's internal addressing.
Some of the application issues with NATs spring directly from this issue
(e.g. user of X-terminal setting display based on IP address instead of
DNS name).
it's not the same issue. the point of using IP addresses in
in an earlier message, I wrote:
OTOH, I don't see why IPv6 will necessarily have significantly more
levels of assignment delegation. Even if it needs a few more levels,
6 or 7 bits out of 128 total is a lot worse than 4 or 5 bits out of 32.
the last sentence contains a thinko. it should
Sean;
[Keith Moore on a "KMart box"]
| take it home, plug it in to your phone line or whatever, and get
| instant internet for all of the computers in your home.
| (almost just like NATs today except that you get static IP addresses).
No, not "or whatever" but "AND whatever".
Do you
At 09:45 PM 4/24/00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
I agree! Why create a finite anything when an infinite
possibility exists?
Exactly. If you designed an open-ended protocol, you're far less likely to
ever have to rewrite it.
You just have to redeploy new implementations when you add new
personally, I can't imagine peering with my neighbors.
but maybe that's just me ... or my neighborhood.
Keith
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 04:32:38PM +0200, Sean Doran wrote:
Therefore, in order to support IPv6 house-network multihoming, so
as to preserve at least these three features of traditional
multihoming, either the current IPv6 addressing architecture's
restrictions on who can be a TLA must be
Ah ... famous last words. I feel confident that similar words were said
when the original 32-bit address scheme was developed:
"Four billion addresses ... that's more than one computer for every person
on Earth!"
"Only a few companies are every going to have more than a few computers
At 08:27 PM 04/24/2000 -0400, Andrew Partan wrote:
Or seperate the end system identifer from the routing goop. This
solves lots of problems (while introducing others).
Deja Vu.
- paul
asp writes:
| Or seperate the end system identifer from the routing goop. This
| solves lots of problems (while introducing others).
Right, so in the 8+8 model, some router performs a NAT function by
writing in the routing goop portion at an address abstraction boundary.
The host does not
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:45:43 +0200, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not every machine on the Internet has an Ethernet card with a MAC address,
otherwise it might not be such a bad idea. I think using the MAC address is
an excellent idea for software protection schemes (it's a lot
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:18:09 +0200, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
allocate a fixed space in advance. In a variable-length address space, you
don't have to anticipate any kind of advance allocation--you can just add
digits to addresses where they are required, and routers only
Yes, we made a guess -- a design compromise. Folks, we're engineers, and we
come up with "good enough" answers. Sure, we try to make sure that the
"good enough" answers are good enough for the majority of situations, for a
reasonable length of time. But we're not prophets or philosophers or
45 matches
Mail list logo
