In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>John Curran wrote:
>> Steve -
>>
>> For the first end site that has to connect via IPv6,
>> it will be very bad if there is not a base of IPv6
>> web/email sites already in place.
>
>As the network administrator for a Web hosting company, I'
t; steve. >>
joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> So, go ahead and continue talking about migration
while ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to take place
and don't let me interrupt that ranting.
joelja >> steve. >> steve. >>
joelja &g
So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while
> ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to take place and
> don't let me interrupt that ranting.
> steve. >> steve. >>
> steve. >> steve. >> Best Regards,
> steve. >>
Christian,
On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole
discussion is pretty pointless
The fact that a practical multihoming solution for IPv6 does not
exist doesn't mean that the IPv4 free pool will not be exhausted.
;> From: Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> steve. >>
> steve. >> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06
> steve. >> To:Christian Kuhtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> steve. >> Cc:Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Dona
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Comcasts of this world burn addresses by the millions. If they can't
have new ones for (almost) free, they'll have to stick multiple customers
behind a single IPv4 address. If you have to share your IP address with
several of your ne
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Comcasts of this world burn addresses by the millions. If they can't
have new ones for (almost) free, they'll have to stick multiple customers
behind a single IPv4 address. If you have to share your IP address with
several of your ne
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How about this: when the OS only has an IPv6 address, and an application
wants to talk to an IPv4-only destination, automatically proxy the TCP
session through an HTTPS proxy. This catches
anything that uses TCP and doesn't need to know i
On 28-jun-2007, at 18:51, John Curran wrote:
If you have a plan for continued operation of the Internet
during IPv4 depletion, please write it up as an RFC. Our
present Internet routing scheme is predominantly working
based on hierarchical routing but I'm certain there are
alter
On 28-jun-2007, at 19:56, Dave Israel wrote:
You don't believe the killer app will be "sorry, no more IP
addresses?"
I bet it won't. There are too many people willing to patch what we
have rather than toss it out and start over. As the IP addresses
run ever lower, ISPs will probably pa
On 28-jun-2007, at 21:55, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
More precisely, I don't see any reason why it would take significantly
less. In fact, it can't take much less, no matter what. Figure two
years for the basic design, 3-5 years for the IETF (or whomever) to
engineer all the pieces (it's more
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:46:53 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:08:52 PDT, Bora Akyol said:
> > At a very low, hardware centric level, IPv6 would be a lot easier to
> > implement if
> >
> > 1) The addresses were 64 bits instead of 128 bits.
> > 2) The extension headers archi
The length of the address (64 vs 128) is not the hard part. Just increases
the cost and the complexity of the ASIC ;-)
The extension headers become a real problem when L4 filtering is desired.
Bora
On 6/28/07 2:46 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:0
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:08:52 PDT, Bora Akyol said:
> At a very low, hardware centric level, IPv6 would be a lot easier to
> implement if
>
> 1) The addresses were 64 bits instead of 128 bits.
> 2) The extension headers architecture was completely revamped to be more
> hardware friendly.
Wow, a b
>
> IPv6 isn't what I wanted it to be (and I was on the IPng directorate).
> That said, it's what we have, and I think we *really* need something
> with a lot more address space.
>
At a very low, hardware centric level, IPv6 would be a lot easier to
implement if
1) The addresses were 64 bit
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:23:30 -0700
brett watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> > Whatever -- it
> > exists as a reasonably stable design; starting over would cost us 15
> > more years that we just don't have.)
>
> Are you saying we
>> Whatever -- it exists as a reasonably stable design; starting over
>> would cost us 15 more years that we just don't have.)
> Are you saying we (collectively) would take yet *another* 15 years to
> come up with another and/or better design?
i have always wanted to see third system syndrome
ra
On Jun 28, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Whatever -- it
exists as a reasonably stable design; starting over would cost us 15
more years that we just don't have.)
Are you saying we (collectively) would take yet *another* 15 years to
come up with another and/or better design?
Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wasnt specifically thinking of reclamation of space, I was noting a
couple of things:
- that less than 50% of the v4 space is currently routed. scarcity will
presumably cause these non-routed blocks to be:
:- used and route
1. IPv4 address space is a scarce resource and it will soon be exhausted.
2. It hasn't run out already due to various efficiency improvements.
3. These are themselves limited.
4. IPv6, though, will provide abundant address space.
5. But there's no incentive to change until enough others do s
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:27:15 -0400
John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:16 AM -0700 6/28/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
> >> servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
> >
> >that may be what it looks like from the view of an addres
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:27:30PM -0400, Aaron Daubman wrote:
>
> On 6/28/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You left out: The "killer-app."
> >Compelling content *only* available via the alternative technology.
> >The IPv-ONLY google/porn/web/tube/iphone/whatever that enough peop
You can, and this will work for a while. When it stops working
(which is not at all predictable) you're going to need a fairly
sizable IPv6 Internet so that you can continue to connect new
customers up, and unfortunately, that means we need to start
getting folks moving ahead of time since we d
On 28-Jun-2007, at 13:16, Randy Bush wrote:
Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
that may be what it looks like from the view of an address allocator.
but if you actually have to deliver data from servers you need a path
where dat
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:27:30 EDT, Aaron Daubman said:
> I wonder what it would take to convince a major online retailer
> (Amazon?), an auction site (eBay?) or even transaction handlers
> (google checkout, paypal?) to put up v6 portals that offered
> across-the-board (or even select) discounts to
Adrian Chadd wrote:
You don't believe the killer app will be "sorry, no more IP addresses?"
I bet it won't. There are too many people willing to patch what we have
rather than toss it out and start over. As the IP addresses run ever
lower, ISPs will probably patrol usage even more and r
You don't believe the killer app will be "sorry, no more IP addresses?"
Nope. Not at all.
--chuck
Kevin Oberman wrote:
> While these are wasted, getting them back is essentially impossible.
The term wasted is being used way to freely on this list.
If by waste you mean:
To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.
Then I have to disagree.
If you mean they (unannounced
> At 10:16 AM -0700 6/28/07, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
>>> servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
>> that may be what it looks like from the view of an address allocator.
>>
>> but if you actually have to deliver data from servers you need a p
Chuck et. al;
On 6/28/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You left out: The "killer-app."
Compelling content *only* available via the alternative technology.
The IPv-ONLY google/porn/web/tube/iphone/whatever that enough people
want/desire/need/are-willing-to-pay-for to move the netwo
At 10:16 AM -0700 6/28/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
>> servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
>
>that may be what it looks like from the view of an address allocator.
>
>but if you actually have to deliver data from servers you need a path
>w
At 17:42 +0100 6/28/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
- that less than 50% of the v4 space is currently routed. scarcity will
presumably cause these non-routed blocks to be:
:- used and routes
:- reclaimed and reassigned
:- sold on
There's also the possibility:
:- continued to be used as they a
At 6:09 PM +0100 6/28/07, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
>Hi John,
> I am not offering an elegant technical solution that would be worthy of an
> RFC number! :) But I am saying that the Internet of today will evolve
> organically and that there are a number of ways you can get by with what we
> have for
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007, chuck goolsbee wrote:
>
> >6. Economists call this a collective action problem. Traditional
> >solutions include legislation, market leadership, and agreements among
> >small actors to achieve such leadership.
>
> You left out: The "killer-app."
>
> Compelling content *on
> Interoperability is achieved by having public facing
> servers reachable via IPv4 and IPv6.
that may be what it looks like from the view of an address allocator.
but if you actually have to deliver data from servers you need a path
where data from/in both protocols is supported on ever
At 9:59 AM -0700 6/28/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> >If you have a plan for continued operation of the Internet
>>during IPv4 depletion, please write it up as an RFC.
>
>if you have a simple and usable plan for ipv6 transition, please write
>it up in any readable form!
>
>randy
Will do,
/John
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:42:47 +0100
> From: Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Hi John,
> I wasnt specifically thinking of reclamation of space, I was noting a
> couple of things:
>
> - that less than 50% of the v4 space is currently routed. scarcity will
6. Economists call this a collective action problem. Traditional
solutions include legislation, market leadership, and agreements among
small actors to achieve such leadership.
You left out: The "killer-app."
Compelling content *only* available via the alternative technology.
The IPv-ONLY g
38 matches
Mail list logo
