On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
> resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
> single default external route.
>
> So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to
Or just use their IP address as a useful universal identifier, which is
kind of the point of V6. Whether you can be routed to isn't the point.
It's that, if/when you can, there is an address, and it's easy to
assign/divine, that you can be reached at, is.
> -Original Message-
> From: Geor
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most mobile providers have been doing what is commonly called cgn for 5 to
10 years. CGN is not a new concept or implementation for mobile.
True, but, as we have discussed before, mobile users, especially in the US,
have dramatically lowered expectations
On Oct 7, 2012, at 3:18 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote:
>>
>> Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
>> internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
>>
>
> Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full load. (gigs and gigs
Of all the problems CGN creates, I would think that latency is in the noise
compared to the other issues.
Owen
On Oct 7, 2012, at 1:56 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
> company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and
> i
- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> Well, George, you can take a new idea and run with it a bit, or just
> resist it right from the start.
>
> We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
>
> So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. Th
>
> Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
> resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
> single default external route.
>
> So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to
> BGP in some sense.
LISP DDT uses a lookup
On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote:
>
> Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
> internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
>
Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full load. (gigs and gigs) . CGN does not
meaningfully add latency. CGN is not enough of
Sorry, at a conference and not paying enough attention to email. My bad.
-george
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Cutler James R
wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>> Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
>> company's outbound web proxies, in
Or maybe SDN ? So many acronyms to choose from
On Oct 7, 2012 5:31 PM, "Jon Lewis" wrote:
> I think you've confused CGN with CDN.
>
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, George Herbert wrote:
>
> Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
>> company's outbound web proxies, internet games
On Oct 7, 2012, at 4:56 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
> company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and
> image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content
> faster than the main website could, regardle
I think you've confused CGN with CDN.
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, George Herbert wrote:
Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and
image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content
faster than the mai
Ancedotally, for users of an e-gadget company's website, cellphone
company's outbound web proxies, internet games company, and
image-intensive home furnishings website, the CGNs delivered content
faster than the main website could, regardless of increasing its
bandwidth. Latency problems with the
Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
I've seen theoretical predictions but by now we should have
measurements from early-world deployments.
Thanks,
Tom
--
Speaking at MacTech Conference 2012. http://mactech.com/c
On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
> resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
> single default external route.
>
> So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar t
Back in the 80s when DNS was a fairly new idea and things like Google
were way in the future I remember suggesting on the TCP-IP list that
people grab a phone number they owned as a domain name and add
first_last as a mailbox so we could leverage the international phone
directory system to find ea
Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
single default external route.
So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to
BGP in some sense.
I suppose one question is how do we disc
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information,
> no?
It has occurred to me that the name on my shirt's tag contains some
structured information. That doesn't make it particularly well suited
for use as a computer network ro
On 07/10/2012 00:34, Randy Bush wrote:
> ipv6 route 2001:DB8:0:DEAD:BEEF::1/128 Null0
plug: rfc .
100::/64 is reserved for this purpose.
Nick
On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
>
> So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a
> smooth function from hostname->ipaddr->routing.
No.
Not just no, but hell no at the asserted c
20 matches
Mail list logo
