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.
Oh, look, release notes, known issue statements, bugtracker entries...
Seems
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 every
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,
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,
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
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 reasonable
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).
(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 DNS
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! :-)
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
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.
--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
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 work, they
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, correctly
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
--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 one
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 only case you
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 would
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
server in
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 than
some time
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.
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 getting
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 jointly
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
