On 10/03/2012 09:52 AM, Seth Mos wrote:
Op 3-10-2012 18:33, Kevin Broderick schreef:
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture
hall, Vint Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle
worthy and at the time, and a fond memory
- K
Pick a number between
On 7 Oct 2012, at 18:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Intentionally crashing the moon into the earth is a new idea. How far
should we run with it before concluding that it not only isn't a very
good one, considering it hasn't taught us anything we didn't already
know?
On 6 Oct 2012, at 02:11, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Wasn't David Cheriton proposing something like this?
http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/triad/
CCNx basically routes on URLs
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2009/papers/Jacobson.pdf
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at
as we all
acknowledge the purpose of the discussion. :-)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 6:25 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Barry Shein
Subject: RE: IPv4 address length technical design
While this is an interesting
On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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
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
On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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
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 to
- Original Message -
From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
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
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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
It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information,
no?
-b
On October 5, 2012 at 21:47 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
Hi
As I said earlier, names' structure does not map to network or physical
location structure.
DNS is who; IP is where. Both are reasonably efficient now as separate
entities. Combining them will wreck one. You're choosing to wreck routing
(where), which to backbone people sounds frankly stark
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. There's a
smooth function from hostname-ipaddr-routing.
Take an
My money is on an epic troll. Four out of five network engineers surveyed
agree their individual IP headers are best served without condiments.
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 2:06 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv4 address
On Oct 6, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote, in part:
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.
I would suggest that this is a
Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC
addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been
tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just
XNS addresses and maybe this has changed but Xerox used to manage the
master 802 OUI list and are
While this is an interesting thought experiment, what problem are
you trying to solve with this proposal?
(asked privately but it seems worthwhile answering publicly, bcc'd,
you can id yourself if you like.)
Look, as I said in the original message I was asked to speak to a
group of young
On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC
addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been
tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just
XNS addresses and maybe this has changed but
On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation
implications (net part, host part.)
A host name is a string of bits of varying length. But it's still just
ones and zeros, an
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
Hi Barry,
Bits is bits and atoms is atoms so lets swap all the iron for helium
and see how that works out for us.
You can say bits as bits as clearly as you like
On 10/5/2012 9:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation
implications (net part, host part.)
A host name is a string of bits of
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
About the only obvious objection, other than vague handwaves about
compute efficiency, is it would
a
concept like this could help on several levels. It just seems like something
different needs to be done.
S -
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:07 AM
To: Barry Shein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length
that would work.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just doing away
with IP
Don't change anything! That would...change things!
Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address
rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental
change. It's more in the realm of a speculative proposal.
But I'm not sure that arguing that our string of
- Original Message -
From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
Don't change anything! That would...change things!
Your man; he is made of straw. :-)
Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address
rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:59:20PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Where's Noel Chiappa when you need him?
(2) The new protocol will use variable-length address for the Host
portion, such as used in the addresses of CLNP,
This also was considered during the IPv6 design phase,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets
rather than bytes, as they had a rather slippery notion of byte
(anywhere from 6 to 9 bits, often multiple sizes used *in the
same program*).
Not quite correct. Anywhere from 1 to 36 bits, and
Eugen Leitl wrote:
Except that these will be pure photonic networks, and apart from optical
delay lines for your packet buffer you'd better be able to make a routing
(switching) decision
Seriously speaking, that is the likely future as 1T
Ethernet will be impractical.
The point is to use
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the latter would be a declining percentage of
On 10/4/12 1:31 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
I've heard Vint Cerf say this himself, but here's a written reference
for you. They had just finished building
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once host identifiers are no longer dependent on or related to topology,
there's no reason a reasonable fixed-length cannot suffice.
Host identities should be cryptographic hashes of public keys, so you have
to support algorithm agility, which probably
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:57:34, Johnny Eriksson said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets
rather than bytes, as they had a rather slippery notion of byte
(anywhere from 6 to 9 bits, often multiple sizes used *in the
same
On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once host identifiers are no longer dependent on or related to topology,
there's no reason a reasonable fixed-length cannot suffice.
Host identities should be cryptographic hashes of public
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have learned our lesson and done two things:
(1) Stopped mixing
On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
Or did you mean use DNS as it fits in the current system, which
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits is bits. They're even structured so you
can route on the network portion etc.
In message 20590.7539.491575.455...@world.std.com, Barry Shein writes:
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits is
- Original Message -
From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits is
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
Cheers.
I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
--
Sadiq S
O ascii ribbon
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture hall, Vint
Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle worthy and at the
time, and a fond memory
- K
Sadiq Saif sa...@asininetech.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell
Op 3-10-2012 18:33, Kevin Broderick schreef:
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture hall, Vint
Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle worthy and at the
time, and a fond memory
- K
Pick a number between this and that. It's the 80's and you
Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com writes:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
Cheers.
8 bit host identifiers had proven to be too short... :)
-r
Sadiq Saif [mailto:sa...@asininetech.com] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com
wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
Cheers.
I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 -
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
Pick a number between this and that. It's the 80's and you can
still count the computers in the world. :)
And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits. Go
figure. I'm pretty sure the explanation you're looking for
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Sadiq Saif [mailto:sa...@asininetech.com] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com
wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of
32
bits for an IPv4
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
Pick a number between this and that. It's the 80's and you can
still count the computers in the world. :)
And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits.
[mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:28 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
It's worthwhile noting that the state of system (mini and
microcomputer) art
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:44:16 -0400, Tony Patti said:
Perhaps worth noting (for the archives) that a significant part of the early
ARPAnet was DECsystem-10's with 36-bit words.
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets rather than
bytes,
as they had a rather slippery
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
Pick a number between this and that. It's the 80's and you can
still count the computers in the world. :)
And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits.
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the
choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
...
Actually that was preceded by RFC 760, which in turn was a derivative
of IEN 123. I believe the answer to the original question is
...
My theory is that there is a meta-rule to make
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
My theory is that there is a meta-rule to make new address spaces have
4 times as many bits as the previous generation.
We have three data points to establish this for the Internet, and
that's the minimum needed to run a
--- j...@baylink.com wrote:
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
-
Jim says:
IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32)
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8
addressing8 regions, 256 distribution
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
--- j...@baylink.com wrote:
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
-
Jim says:
IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32)
There is a
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mos [mailto:seth@dds.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:53 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
Op 3-10-2012 18:33, Kevin Broderick schreef:
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture
On Oct 3, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
Pick a number between this and that. It's the 80's and you can
still count the computers in the world. :)
And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits.
On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have learned our lesson and done two things:
(1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:49:56 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
(1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network
identification into the same bit field; instead every packet gets a
source network address, destination network address, AND an
additional tuple of Source host
On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:59 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:49:56 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
(1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network
identification into the same bit field;
Where's Noel Chiappa when you need him?
Saying I told you so I suspect.
On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the
choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
...
Actually that was preceded by RFC 760, which in turn was a derivative
of IEN 123. I believe the answer to the original
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have learned our lesson and done two things:
(1)
On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have learned our lesson and done two things:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses,
On October 3, 2012 at 17:09 j...@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
/troll
Variable.
-b
68 matches
Mail list logo
