Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

t;Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Per Heldal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) > > >> There is a fundamenta

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 15:52 -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Hmm. Are the aliens who took the _real_ IETF and replaced it with > what's there now going to give it back? :-) > Sure they'll hand it back ... when there is no more money to be made from IETF-related technology and politicians no lon

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> Obviously if the RIRs contacted the folks responsible for a given block and > were provided justification for its continued allocation, then it should not > be reclaimed. On the other hand, folks sitting on several class Bs and not > using them could have their blocks reclaimed trivially;

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony, On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Tony Li wrote: Not necessarily. If you transition at the edge, what happens within the site matters only to the site and what matters to the core only matters to the core. No stacks, either core or edge, need to be rewritten. Transitioning at the edg

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Daniel, But wasn't that the rationale for originally putting the kitchen sink into IPv6, rather than fixing the address length issue? The stated rationale was to fix the address length issue. I think we missed a lot of opportunities. Amen. We're 10 years on, and talking about wheth

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

David, A real locator/identifier separation requires a rewrite. Not necessarily. If you transition at the edge, what happens within the site matters only to the site and what matters to the core only matters to the core. No stacks, either core or edge, need to be rewritten. Trans

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> E.g prevously announced address-blocks that has disappeared from the global routing-table for more than X months should go back to the RIR-pool (X<=6). In RFC 2050 section 3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Fred! On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Fred Baker wrote: > But yes, communities of a rational size and density could get an address > block, the relevant ISPs could all advertise it into the backbone, and the > ISPs could determine among themselves how to de

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

the principal issue I see with your proposal is that it is DUAL homing vs MULTI homing. To make it viable, I think you have to say something like "two or more ISPs must participate in a multilateral peering arrangement that shares the address pool among them". The location of the actual p

RE: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Nanog, I've been thinking a bunch about this IPv6 multihoming issue. It seems that the method of hierarchical summarization will keep the global tables small for all single-homed end user blocks. But the multihomed ones will be the problem. The possible solution I've been thinking about

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) wrote: > I'm suggesting not mucking with the packet format anymore. It might > be ugly, but it can be made to work until somebody comes up with > IPv7. Instead, since the locator/identifier split wasn't done in the > protocol, do the split in _operation_.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony, On Oct 16, 2005, at 1:15 AM, Tony Li wrote: A real locator/identifier separation requires a rewrite. Not necessarily. If you transition at the edge, what happens within the site matters only to the site and what matters to the core only matters to the core. No stacks, either core

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> this because padlipsky's mantra about maps and territories came into my head S.I. Hayakawa - Language and Thought in Action "The symbol is not the thing the thing symbolized; The map is not the territory: The word is not the thing." Nevertheless, Padlipsky is a good thing to read.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

# >> True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make # >> use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport # >> protocols. # > # > The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something # > which can do the lookup and supply transport with

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> E.g prevously > announced address-blocks that has disappeared from the global > routing-table for more than X months should go back to the RIR-pool > (X<=6). In RFC 2050 section 3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> > check out "The Landmark Hierarchy: A New Hierarchy for Routing in Very Large > > Networks"; Paul Tsuchiya; 1989. > >great stuff... i have a hardcopy. is it online yet? Just google for "landmark routing" and you will find lots of papers and presentations that deal with the topic. If OSP

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport protocols. The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something which can do the lookup and supply transport with right addre

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Also, if everybody got their equal size subnet delegation from each ISP then it shouldnt be that much of a problem to run two "networks" side-by-side by using the subnet part of the delegation equal to both networks, but keep the prefix separate.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: True. Even better, you get to change this binding (mobility) or have multiple bindings (multihoming). Indeed. True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport prot

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Li) writes: > Specifically, the IAB should call for a halt to IPv6 deployment until > consensus is reached on a scalable routing architecture. I realize > that this is painful, but continuing to deploy is simply creating a > v6 mortgage that we cannot afford to pay

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Fred, So the routing problem was looked at, and making a fundamental routing change was rejected by both the operational community and the routing folks. No, IPv6 doesn't fix (or even change) the routing of the system, and that problem will fester until it becomes important enough to

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> What we need is an interdomain routing system that can either (a) > drastically reduce the incremental cost of additional prefixes in the DFZ, > or (b) move the exist cost out of the DFZ to the people who want to > multihome. Both probably mean ditching BGP4 and moving to some sort of > int

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Thus spake "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The RIRs have been trying pretty hard to make IPv6 allocations be one prefix per ISP, with truly large edge networks being treated as functionally equivalent to an ISP (PI addressing without admitting it is being done). Make the bald assertion that

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

- Original Message - From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Per Heldal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 15:12 Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) That is an assumption that I haven

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Wasn't Noel Chiappa Nimrods "father" ? He explained his philosophy to me in an interview a decade ago as well as why he believed that BGP was not sustainable. yet here we are still chugging along meanwhile back to your operational flows ;-) ==

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:24:08 -0700 Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Tony et al.; This is beginning to sound like an IETF or IRTF mail list, and, lo!, I get an email today from Leslie Daigle : A new mailing list has been created to provide a forum for general discussion of Internet ar

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Tony Li wrote: To not even *attempt* to avoid future all-systems changes is nothing short of negligent, IMHO. On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: and that is what the other v6 ivory tower crew said a decade ago. which is why we have the disaster we ha

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

we agree that at least initially every prefix allocated should belong to a different AS (eg, no AS gets more than one); the fly in that is whether there is an ISP somewhere that is so truly large that it needs two super-sized blocks. I don't know if such exists, but one hopes it is very m

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Daniel, If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to happen again. That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocol transition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is. We can't

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

At 04:51 PM 10/17/2005, Tony Li wrote: Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but th

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

>> There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in the >> table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it to >> bloat in the first place. Simply reducing the table as a one-off >> only buys you linearly more time. Eliminating the drivers for bloat >> buys you te

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - > but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and > will have to. and that is what the other v6 ivory tower crew said a decade ago. which is why we have the disaster we have now. randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

It doesn't look like were talking about the same thing. A. Address conservation and aggregation (IPv4 and IPv6) is very important to get the most out of what we've got. Read; limit the combined routing-table to a manageable size whatever that may be. B. There seems to be widespread fear that the

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and will have to. On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Tony Li wrote: Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On 10/17/05 4:51 PM, "Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fred, > >> If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of >> magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally >> change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and >> yes, I would like to

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but that is a different assertion. Th

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

That is an assumption that I haven't found it necessary to make. I have concluded that there is no real debate about whether the Internet will have to change to something that gives us the ability to directly address (e.g. not behind a NAT, which imposes some "interesting" requirements at

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> --bill (checking citesear...) does that only yield rare papers :-) and citeseer does not have the paper, only a few cites to it randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

>> check out "The Landmark Hierarchy: A New Hierarchy for Routing in Very >> Large Networks"; Paul Tsuchiya; 1989. > great stuff... i have a hardcopy. is it online yet? dunno if i would say great. but certainly good. randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

mon, 17,.10.2005 kl. 11.29 -0700, Fred Baker: > OK. What you just described is akin to an enterprise network with a > default route. It's also akin to the way DNS works. No default, just one or more *potential* routes. Your input is appreciated, and yes I'm very much aware that many people who

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:03:45AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Imagine a situation with no access to any means of direct communication > > (phone etc). You've got a message to deliver to some person, and have no > > idea where to find that person. Chances are there's a group of people > > near

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> Imagine a situation with no access to any means of direct communication > (phone etc). You've got a message to deliver to some person, and have no > idea where to find that person. Chances are there's a group of people > nearby you can ask. They may know how to find the one you're looking > for.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 19.16 +0200, skrev Peter Dambier: > That reminds me of anycasting or routing issues. > > Hackers did use this technique to make use of ip addresses not > really allocated. There would be no need for IPv6 if this was > more widespread. > > How about claiming to be f.root-serv

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 15.47 +, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: > > > Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats > > clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you > > exist. The rest of the internet knows nothing

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

OK. What you just described is akin to an enterprise network with a default route. It's also akin to the way DNS works. The big question becomes not only "who knows what I need to know", but "how do I know that they actually know it?". For example, let's postulate that the concept is that

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

That reminds me of anycasting or routing issues. Hackers did use this technique to make use of ip addresses not really allocated. There would be no need for IPv6 if this was more widespread. How about claiming to be f.root-servers.net and setting up our own root :) Regards, Peter and Karin Da

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Paul, This is completely orthogonal to a real identifier/locator split, which would divide what we know of as the 'address' into two separate spaces, one which says "where" the node is, topologically, and one which says "who" the node is. Hmm, no idea whether it's a good idea or not, bu

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.25 -0700, skrev Fred Baker: > is that anything like using, in Cisco terms, a "fast-switching cache" > vs a "FIB"? I'll bite as I wrote the paragraph you're quoting; Actually, hanging on to the old concepts may be more confusing than trying to look at it in completely n

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

is that anything like using, in Cisco terms, a "fast-switching cache" vs a "FIB"? On Oct 17, 2005, at 6:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you exist. The rest

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you exist. The rest of the internet knows nothing about you, except there are mechanisms that let them "track you down" whe

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 12.55 +, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: [snip] > > MPLS on its own won't solve anything. Although MPLS has its uses, > > it smells too much like another desperate attempt from the telco-heads > > in the ITU crowd to make a packet-switched network look and behave like > > a circ

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: This is completely orthogonal to a real identifier/locator split, which would divide what we know of as the 'address' into two separate spaces, one which says "where" the node is, topologically, and one which says "who" the node is. Hmm, no idea whether i

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.17 +0200, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: Both MPLS and any tunneled VPN over IP means the core won't have to know about all those prefixes (think aggregation of addresses regionally in the IP case and outer label in the MPLS case). Ho

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.17 +0200, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: > Both MPLS and any tunneled VPN over IP means the core won't have to know > about all those prefixes (think aggregation of addresses regionally in the > IP case and outer label in the MPLS case). Hope you don't imply NAT and private a

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > you are getting these anyway, thank network convergence for that... or > > curse it, your call. things like 2547 'vpn' and the like are driving > > prefix numbers up regardless of what the I

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: you are getting these anyway, thank network convergence for that... or curse it, your call. things like 2547 'vpn' and the like are driving prefix numbers up regardless of what the Internet is doing. Hardware will be required to handle million

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Think in the future, do we really want routers that'll handle millions of > prefixes and hundreds of thousands of AS numbers, just because people want > resiliance? If this can be solved on the end-user layer instead, it's more you are getting t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Oct-2005, at 16:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:55:38 EDT, Joe Abley said: Thought experiment: how many different software vendors need to change their shipping IPv6 code in order for some new feature like shim6 to be 8

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:55:38 EDT, Joe Abley said: > Thought experiment: how many different software vendors need to > change their shipping IPv6 code in order for some new feature like > shim6 to be 80% deployed in the server and client communities of hosts? > > I'm thinking it's probably les

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Apologies for the reply to self, but my example was wrong so let me revise. On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 15:26 +0100, John Reilly wrote: > e.g. > > Say there is a host a::1 and my server has 3 IP addresses b::1, c::1 and > d::1, via service providers B, C and D. > > As it stands, obviously a::1 can

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

# ... # # You are missing the point. # # Currently multihomed sites have multiple path entries in the routing table # for a specific multihomed prefix. # # Instead of having multiple paths, you would have multiple location records # in DNS. (Which are A records and any possible reordering by

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

# ... # # Obviously, some of the disadvantages of such an approach would be that it # would require both ends to play and end users wouldn't be able to # traceroute. I'm sure there are many other disadvantages as well. ... ok, so here's the problem. we don't have what the iab thinks of as end

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> GSE also has a direct impact on all implementations (e.g., only use > the identifier bits in the TCP pseudo-header, so that is also an all- > implementations change. Further, that is a flag day, worldwide, even > for non-multi-homed sites. a flag day only for the very small number of ipv6

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On 16-Oct-2005, at 03:37, David Conrad wrote: Shifting the NAT to end system removed the objection to NAT, tho it's not entirely clear why. Shifting NAT to the end system also happened to simplify the entire solution as well. Except for the part about having to rewrite all existing imp

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Forgot to subscribe to nanog-post first time round... Forwarded Message On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 05:31 -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > Long story short, seperating endpoint/locator does nothing to allow > multiple paths to a single IP6 address/prefix to scale. I may be wrong - I hav

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> Think in the future, do we really want routers that'll handle millions of > prefixes and hundreds of thousands of AS numbers, just because people want > resiliance? Something will have to provide it and I don't want it to be each of my hosts. I'd rather the hundreds of hosts handle payload an

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Mike Leber wrote: Does shim6 require new protocol stacks on the hosts at both ends of a session? (If not then the source is not making its own path selection decisions.) As I understood it, shim6 is a way for two hosts to communicate between each other that they have mu

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: > Mike Leber wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: > > For example, if your goal was to have TCP-like sessions between > > identifiers survive network events without globally propagating full > > network topology information about your site (the

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Mike Leber wrote: On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: For example, if your goal was to have TCP-like sessions between identifiers survive network events without globally propagating full network topology information about your site (the gripe against classic IPv4 BGP) you could have mul

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony Li wrote: How is a split between locator / identifier any different logicaly from the existing ipv4 source routing? IPv4 source routing, as it exists today, is an extremely limited mechanism for specifying waypoints along the path to the destination. IOW the end stations were

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: > Tony Li wrote: > > It's just a mess. I think that we all can agree that a real locator/ > > identifier split is the correct architectural direction, but that's > > simply not politically tractable. If the real message that the > > provider community

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

How is a split between locator / identifier any different logicaly from the existing ipv4 source routing? IPv4 source routing, as it exists today, is an extremely limited mechanism for specifying waypoints along the path to the destination. This is completely orthogonal to a real identi

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony Li wrote: It's just a mess. I think that we all can agree that a real locator/ identifier split is the correct architectural direction, but that's simply not politically tractable. If the real message that the provider community is trying to send is that they want this, and not

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Certainly does. Apparently this or a similar idea was suggested back in 1997, and is the root origin of the 64 bits for host address space, according to Christian Huitema, in his IPv6 book - http://www.huitema.net/ipv6.asp. A google search found the draft : "GSE - An Alternate Addressing Arc

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Shifting the NAT to end system removed the objection to NAT, tho it's not entirely clear why. Shifting NAT to the end system also happened to simplify the entire solution as well. Except for the part about having to rewrite all existing implementations to take full advantage of the techn

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Hi David, > > Well, if you NAT the destination identifier into a routing locator > when a packet traverses the source edge/core boundary and NAT the > locator back into the original destination identifier when you get to > the core/destination edge boundary, it might be relevant. The

And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony, On Oct 15, 2005, at 11:26 PM, Tony Li wrote: Paul is correct. Things that looked like NAT were rejected because "NAT is evil". Religion is so much fun. Shifting the NAT to end system removed the objection to NAT, tho it's not entirely clear why. Shifting NAT to the end system also