--On mandag, mars 31, 2003 16:44:35 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In any event, please note that the suggestion that applications are
required to use names, rather than IP addresses, is new.
Completely new.
As in, it has not been part of the Internet architecture for the past 25
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
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
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
The IETF_Censored mailing list
At times, the IETF list is subject to debates that have little to do
with the purposes for which the IETF list was created. Some people
would appreciate a quieter forum for the relevant debates
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Effectively this could be resolved by having one globally
unique identifier per node.
Paging Noel Chiappa Paging Noel Chiappa ;)
Ah, one moment, if I may:
his books, he always said, contained the teachings of his master,
Socrates; ...
heck, TCP breaks if you change an address out from under it, so it's
hardly surprising that apps using TCP break under similar conditions.
...
hosts could advertise static loopback addresses. Bind TCP to the
static loopback address.
we do this. however, it only works inside a routing
Harald,
In any event, please note that the suggestion that applications are
required to use names, rather than IP addresses, is new.
...
As in, it has not been part of the Internet architecture for the past 25
years.
HTA RFC 1958, June 1996:
HTA 4. Name and address issues
HTA yes, required
Tony,
TH The discussions on the multi6 mail list
TH have basically been about how the routing community believes the address
TH is the topology locator, while your Dave's comments show the app
TH community believes it is an identifier.
By definition, an address is a topology indicator.
One topic that is important to some people appears to be missing from
this document: what licensing scheme the Unicode Consortium uses for
their standards. It would be useful to include a discussion on the
differences between how the Unicode standard and IETF documents can be
(re-)distributed and
Dave Crocker wrote:
TH The discussions on the multi6 mail list
TH have basically been about how the routing community believes the
TH address is the topology locator, while your Dave's
comments show
TH the app community believes it is an identifier.
By definition, an address is a
And my point is that when you take that uninterpreted label out of its
context of uniqueness, it can't be used as a meaningful name.
which is why addresses need to be unique.
The real problem that the app community has with 1918 SL is that
they validly want a single namespace, but they also
%
%
% --On Monday, 31 March, 2003 09:01 -0800 Bill Manning
% [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Is may be worth noting that RIRs have -NEVER- made
% presumptionson routability of the delegations they make.
%
% I believe that, although I remember some arguments within ARIN
% back when
% 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 server in SiteA, what does it do?
%
% Send a name.
%
% Not all addresses
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
your general perspective highlights the problem at hand. ..
the routing community believes the address is the topology locator,
while your Dave's comments show the app community believes it is an
identifier.
To paraphrase Clint Eastwood
Egads. This list is still talking about the Identity Problem (i.e., that IP addresses
are semantically overloaded in that they simultaneously indicate (network interface)
routing topology and (node) identity). I just can't believe how we can continually
talk about this problem and then not
During this discussion I've seen references to the 69/8 debacle.
Can anybody explain what the debacle is/was? Is this a magic phrase
for real insiders? Is is something that happened only on a local
net? If not, why don't you explain to the rest of the world? What
IS the argument hinted to
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HIP only solves part of the problem ... it doesn't provide any way of
mapping between that identity and an address where you can reach the
host.
A system doesn't have to provide mechanisms to look up mappings from
any-name to any-other-name
--On Monday, 31 March, 2003 09:01 -0800 Bill Manning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is may be worth noting that RIRs have -NEVER- made
presumptionson routability of the delegations they make.
I believe that, although I remember some arguments within ARIN
back when I was on the AC about
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it does need to provide such mechanisms in order to provide useful
endpoint identifiers.
I don't think you can make such a blanket statement without some more
analysis. For example:
without a mechanism to map the endpoint identifier to an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Bill == Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill Are the apps for which IPv6 is enabled that -can not-
Bill use address literals? If so, then Steve is wrong and
yes.
Both IPv4 and IPv6 web browsers behave differently if you do,
--On tirsdag, april 01, 2003 12:31:06 -0800 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
During this discussion I've seen references to the 69/8 debacle.
Can anybody explain what the debacle is/was? Is this a magic phrase
for real insiders? Is is something that happened only on a local
net? If not, why
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On tirsdag, april 01, 2003 12:31:06 -0800 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
During this discussion I've seen references to the 69/8 debacle.
Can anybody explain what the debacle is/was? Is this a magic phrase
for real insiders? Is is
I am not going to comment on each point, but your general perspective
highlights the problem at hand. The discussions on the multi6 mail
list have basically been about how the routing community believes the
address is the topology locator, while your Dave's comments show the
app community
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.
without a mechanism to map the endpoint identifier to an IP address,
such identifiers are useless in referrals between application
components.
This is not so. Read again what I said before:
If you construct the protocol interactions such that you don't *need* to
be
Mass Delusion is just that. Witness the 69/8 debacle.
During this discussion I've seen references to the 69/8 debacle.
Can anybody explain what the debacle is/was? Is this a magic phrase
for real insiders? Is is something that happened only on a local
net? If not, why don't you
% Mass Delusion is just that. Witness the 69/8 debacle.
%
% During this discussion I've seen references to the 69/8 debacle.
% Can anybody explain what the debacle is/was? Is this a magic phrase
% for real insiders? Is is something that happened only on a local
% net? If not, why don't
Egads. This list is still talking about the Identity Problem (i.e.,
that IP addresses are semantically overloaded in that they
simultaneously indicate (network interface) routing topology and
(node) identity). I just can't believe how we can continually talk
about this problem and then not
Keith Moore wrote:
HIP only solves part of the problem. It lets you use something besides
an address as a host identity, but it doesn't provide any way of mapping
between that identity and an address where you can reach the host.
That's not entirely true. It doesn't give you a very scalable way
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:26:47 -0500
J. Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HIP only solves part of the problem ... it doesn't provide any
way of mapping between that identity and an address where you
can reach the host.
A system
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:08:26 -0800
Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
HIP only solves part of the problem. It lets you use something
besides an address as a host identity, but it doesn't provide any
way of mapping between that identity and an address where you can
--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
33 matches
Mail list logo
