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?? :)
:: is your friend. If you're
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore writes:
Then there's the problem that when a 800-pound gorilla ships code,
that code largely defines expectations for what will and will not
work in practice- often moreso than the standards themselves.
Strange as I feel defending Microsoft, I
Steve I can't get upset about Microsoft declining to ship poorly-tested
Steve code. Given how many security holes are due to buggy, poorly-tested
Steve programs, I applaud anyone who takes that seriously.
Well, suppose they were to ship IPv6 without IPsec, on the grounds that they
didn't
On 2 Apr 2003 at 18:10, Keith Moore wrote:
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
Michael Richardson wrote:
-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
Hi, Jeroen,
Are you talking about
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2732.txt (PS)?
My quick read of this RFC is that it says don't use IPv6
literals without enclosing them in brackets, as in
host = hostname | IPv4address | IPv6reference
ipv6reference = [ IPv6address ]
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Jeroen,
Are you talking about
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2732.txt (PS)?
My quick read of this RFC is that it says don't use IPv6
literals without enclosing them in brackets, as in
host = hostname | IPv4address | IPv6reference
Jeroen Massar wrote:
... That's also why IE in XP doesn't support it.
Making claims that you know nothing about, only exposes your lack of
clue.
Tony
At 10:18 AM 4/2/2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Jeroen,
Are you talking about
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2732.txt (PS)?
My quick read of this RFC is that it says don't use IPv6
literals without enclosing them in brackets, as in
host =
Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
... That's also why IE in XP doesn't support it.
Making claims that you know nothing about, only exposes your lack of
clue.
Fortunatly I don't have to resolve to personal accusations
to get my point across. I cc:'d the
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
... That's also why IE in XP doesn't support it.
Making claims that you know nothing about, only exposes
your lack of
clue.
Fortunatly I don't have to resolve to personal accusations
to get
% 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
% about
Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Keith Moore wrote:
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,
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
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; ...
% 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
--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
-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,
Hi John,
But suppose we really do have enough address space (independent of routing
issues). In that context, is site local just a shortcut to avoid dealing
with a more general problem? Should we have a address allocation policy
that updates the policies of the 70s but ignores the
Bill Manning wrote:
Is may be worth noting that RIRs have -NEVER- made presumptions
on routability of the delegations they make.
Did you just say 69/8 ? :)
If an ISP chooses not to make a specific prefix reachable
it is there 'problem'/policy, not much to do about it.
Also
Which actually poses an interesting question: when should an application
just give up? IMHO, there is only one clear-cut case, i.e. when the
application actually contacted the peer and obtained an explicit
statement that the planned exchange should not take place -- the
equivalent of a 4XX or
Christian Huitema wrote:
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.
From: Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Well, that is emphatically *NOT* what application developers do.
Speak for yourself.
Which actually poses an interesting question: when should an application
just give up? IMHO, there is only one clear-cut case, i.e. when the
application
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:17:44 PST, Eliot Lear said:
Right up till the point where two companies start communicating with one
another directly with site-locals. Even if there is a router frob to
keep the scopes scoped, you can bet it won't be used until someone
realizes that the above
Hi Tony,
At 11:51 AM 3/31/2003 -0800, 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
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?
I thought we agreed, completely outside of IPv6 concerns,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Right up till the point where two companies start communicating
with one another directly with site-locals.
No, no, no. That's exactly what we don't want site-locals to do.
Site-locals are not to communicate outside their own site, period.
Michel.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:23:15 +0200, Jeroen Massar said:
Effectively this could be resolved by having one globally
unique identifier per node. The underlying protocols should
Paging Noel Chiappa Paging Noel Chiappa ;)
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:23:15 +0200, Jeroen Massar said:
Effectively this could be resolved by having one globally
unique identifier per node. The underlying protocols should
Paging Noel Chiappa Paging Noel Chiappa ;)
Based on
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:30 PM, Tony Hain 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 server in SiteA, what does it do?
Send
Margaret,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
(2) Institutionalizing the need for split DNS. I understand
that some network administrators choose to use split DNS
today, but that doesn't meant that we want to build a
requirement for split DNS it into the IPv6 architecture.
I don't think
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 you
reach a
Thus spake Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right up till the point where two companies start communicating with
one another directly with site-locals. Even if there is a router frob to
keep the scopes scoped, you can bet it won't be used until someone
realizes that the above problem occurred.
Keith Moore wrote:
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.
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 than
some time period T (say for 30 days) have a mechanism for
detecting and recovering from
Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Applications will have to deal with that, yet there is no hint
unless we provide a well-known flag.
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
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:31 EST, David R. Oran said:
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,
David R. Oran wrote:
Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
automagically with each DNS registration?
I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
for 'private' (never to be connected to the internet) purposes.
I think some others have proposed a
John C Klensin wrote:
(ii) ISPs impose restrictions on their customers all the time
and often even enforce them. Many of us consider some of these
to be desirable (e.g., terms and conditions prohibiting
spamming) and others less so (e.g., prohibitions against running
server or peer-peer
John C Klensin wrote:
... but I am unconvinced that we should make special
architectural provisions to make it easier to be in the ISP
business while being clueless.
Isn't that just what we did with MPLS?? ;)
or does that just prove your point? ;))
My arguments are more about
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
We, or more specifically, the upstream ISP or an RIR, can
tell the ISP that things will go badly for them if they
permit un-routable addresses to leak into the public
Internet. The only difference I can see between what I
think is your SL address preference and
John, mixed bag of nasties here. Routing, addressing, and (of course)
the DNS. More fun than should be legal on a friday afternoon.
Routing: there is a varient here. Think about routing table slots.
If I get one, does it matter what the length of the prefix that I
put in it? There are
% David R. Oran wrote:
%
% Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
% automagically with each DNS registration?
%
% I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
% for 'private' (never to be connected to the internet) purposes.
% I think some others
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% David R. Oran wrote:
%
% Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller)
% automagically with each DNS registration?
%
% I proposed a couple of times a /32 from which /48 can be requested
% for 'private' (never to be
48 matches
Mail list logo
