Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 9, 2019 at 17:12 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:30 PM John R. Levine wrote: > > > Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly > > > off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP > > > packet src/dest)

RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

ege -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of b...@theworld.com Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 5:43 PM To: John Levine Cc: nanog@nanog.org; b...@theworld.com Subject: Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment OK OK OK. Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly off-b

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

b...@theworld.com wrote: > > Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly > off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP > packet src/dest) as: [snip] This reminds me of the named data networking research project https://named-data.net/project/faq/

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 18:43 , Matt Harris wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:28 PM Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > URLs are an obvious candidate to consider because they're in use, seem > > to basically work to identify routing endpoints, and are far from a > > random, out

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:28 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > URLs are an obvious candidate to consider because they're in use, seem > > to basically work to identify routing endpoints, and are far from a > > random, out of thin air, choice. > > In reality, you’re not really talking about URLs here,

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

John R. Levine wrote: There's only a few thousand top level domains, so routers should he able to handle this with no problem.  Whaddaya think? Hierarchy inconsistent with network topology is useless for routing. Masataka Ohta

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:30 PM John R. Levine wrote: > > Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly > > off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP > > packet src/dest) as: > > > > We can't do that! It would require changing something! > > Nope.

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP packet src/dest) as: We can't do that! It would require changing something! Nope. You can summarize it as "it doesn't scale", which is what has killed

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Owen DeLong wrote: As a result, you are properly rewarded to make a fool of yourself in public. If I have, it certainly won’t be the first time. Enjoy it, if you can. PERIOD. Masataka Ohta

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 17:43:00 -0400, b...@theworld.com said: > URLs are an obvious candidate to consider because they're in use, seem > to basically work to identify routing endpoints, and are far from a > random, out of thin air, choice. So explain in detail how a router gets from "URL" to

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

b...@theworld.com wrote: URLs are, to a machine, just bit strings though they do incorporate a hierarchical structure which isn't that dissimilar from current network/host parts of IP addresses. Wrong. CIDR hierarchy (available within ASes) has strong correlation to network topology that

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 15:10 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all. > > > Really, it's not, but I know you like to feel smug and > > superior, so enjoy that. > > Are you saying you are so great that only the greatest can >

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 14:43 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > OK OK OK. > > Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly > off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP > packet src/dest) as: > > We can't do that! It would require changing

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Owen DeLong wrote: >> It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all. > Really, it's not, but I know you like to feel smug and > superior, so enjoy that. Are you saying you are so great that only the greatest can be superior to you, which must be enjoyable? Then, you are wrong. You

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

OK OK OK. Can I summarize the current round of objections to my admittedly off-beat proposal (use basically URLs rather than IP addresses in IP packet src/dest) as: We can't do that! It would require changing something! I've no doubt many here are comfortable with the current architecture.

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:38 PM wrote: > On October 8, 2019 at 12:04 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM wrote: > > My main point is, as I said, Bits is Bits, whether they're human > > readable (for some value of "human") like URLs or long hex

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:08 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > On October 8, 2019 at 23:51 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > (responding to my P.S.) > >>P.S. My prediction? >> >>The world's major telcos et al, having had enough of various problems, >>from address exhaustion to

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 8, 2019 at 23:51 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: (responding to my P.S.) > P.S. My prediction? > > The world's major telcos et al, having had enough of various problems, > from address exhaustion to non-stop security disasters, and the > chaotic responses,

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

>> You’re selecting a very limited subset of ICMP that happens to >> contain a portion of a packet that happens to contain a port >> number (or two). > > It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all. Really, it’s not, but I know you like to feel smug and superior, so enjoy that. > See

Re: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment

In article <23963.65395.763065.591...@gargle.gargle.howl> you write: >So I proposed we dump numeric addresses entirely and use basically >URLs in IP packets and elsewhere. > >I really meant something like 'IP://www.TheWorld.com' in the >source/dest addr, possibly more specific for multiple

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:51:12 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > Owen DeLong wrote: > > Yes, thanks for yet another condescending comment proving that > > you completely missed the point of my post. It's always a pleasure. > You should really feel indebted to me because it's not a pleasure > for me to

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Owen DeLong wrote: Why do you think ICMP any different? Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in ICMPv4 error packets contain port numbers just after IP headers. Show me the port number in a type 8 or type 0 packet. First 8 bytes of data field can be used as 4 byte source

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

>> I’m betting that not all of the WWW addresses go to the same ASN. > > Perhaps you have noticed in your vast travels that domain names' > significance is generally read right to left not left to right like IP > addresses? Sure, but I’m betting that trying to aggregate routing around COM. would

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 8, 2019, at 09:48 , Michel Py wrote: > >> Owen DeLong wrote : >> I’m not sure how giving them DNS names makes them less resilient to DNS >> failures. > > How do you resolve the IP address of the PBX ? I hard-code (in the master > config). Usually, i have sufficiently resilient

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 8, 2019, at 02:29 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> Separation between address and port is vague. >> Explain that to ICMP packets. > > Why do you think ICMP any different? > > Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in > ICMPv4 error packets

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Nicholas Warren wrote: It's not 1990 any more, a TB of RAM now costs a few thousand dollars Maybe. and is dropping rapidly (similar for fancy router RAM), Definitely not. It's not 2010 any more. Masataka Ohta

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

William Herrin wrote: The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts can confirm IP address is true by 3 way handshaking. Yeah, but that touches one of the central flaws of the design of IP, v4 and v6. We are talking about design of TCP, not IP. No part of identifying and

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 8, 2019 at 19:12 nwar...@barryelectric.com (Nicholas Warren) wrote: > Sweet deals, would you kindly share your vendor? > > > It's not 1990 any more, a TB of RAM now costs a few thousand dollars > and is dropping rapidly (similar for fancy router RAM), we have > processor chips

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 8, 2019 at 12:04 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM wrote: > > My main point is, as I said, Bits is Bits, whether they're human > readable (for some value of "human") like URLs or long hex strings > which perhaps are less human

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:12:30 -, Nicholas Warren said: > Sweet deals, would you kindly share your vendor? Well, I just type "128G DIMM" into google, and the very first hit tells me that I can get a 128G DIMM for $1,398, that and 8 DiMM slots gets me to 1T just over $11K. If I have 16 DIMM

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Sweet deals, would you kindly share your vendor? It's not 1990 any more, a TB of RAM now costs a few thousand dollars and is dropping rapidly (similar for fancy router RAM), we have processor chips with 64 cores available practically off the shelf for under $10K (32-core literally off the shelf,

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM wrote: > My main point is, as I said, Bits is Bits, whether they're human > readable (for some value of "human") like URLs or long hex strings > which perhaps are less human readable. > Bits aren't just bits. Bits with useful properties (such as aggregability

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:59 PM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > William Herrin wrote: > > If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiate > > the link with a name (e.g. dns name), > > The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts > can confirm IP address is

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 7, 2019 at 23:13 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > > > On Oct 7, 2019, at 20:16 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > > > > Well if you all really want your heads to explode I was invited to > > give a talk a few years ago in Singapore at the local HackerSpace. > > > >

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 8, 2019 at 03:00 michel...@tsisemi.com (Michel Py) wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote : > > Well… I don’t run into this very often any more, but I guess if you have a > > poorly run DNS environment, it might be more of an issue. > > About half of my devices, including all the VOIP

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> Owen DeLong wrote : > I’m not sure how giving them DNS names makes them less resilient to DNS > failures. How do you resolve the IP address of the PBX ? I hard-code (in the master config). The PBX does not have a DNS name. I want my support staff to know its IP on the top of their head. DNS

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Owen DeLong wrote: Separation between address and port is vague. Explain that to ICMP packets. Why do you think ICMP any different? Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in ICMPv4 error packets contain port numbers just after IP headers. Moreover, unlike stupid ICMPv6,

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 23:59 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > William Herrin wrote: > >>> I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P, >>> which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is >>> better. > >> Not a fan of port numbers. > > Separation

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

William Herrin wrote: I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P, which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is better. Not a fan of port numbers. Separation between address and port is vague. If we're going to replace TCP and UDP,

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 20:16 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > Well if you all really want your heads to explode I was invited to > give a talk a few years ago in Singapore at the local HackerSpace. > > It called for something creative and different, not really an IETF > sort of crowd. > > So

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 20:00 , Michel Py wrote: > >> Owen DeLong wrote : >> Well… I don’t run into this very often any more, but I guess if you have a >> poorly run DNS environment, it might be more of an issue. > > About half of my devices, including all the VOIP phones, do not have DNS. I

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Well if you all really want your heads to explode I was invited to give a talk a few years ago in Singapore at the local HackerSpace. It called for something creative and different, not really an IETF sort of crowd. So I proposed we dump numeric addresses entirely and use basically URLs in IP

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Folks should be aware that if you do not assume extreme pressure (which is what it is taking to get IPv6 deployed), it turns out to be quite hard to get the deployment incentives and structures for a map-and-encaps scheme to actually work for Internet-wide deployment. It does work for a range

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> Owen DeLong wrote : > Well… I don’t run into this very often any more, but I guess if you have a > poorly run DNS environment, it might be more of an issue. About half of my devices, including all the VOIP phones, do not have DNS. I just cannot afford to lose the phones if there is a DNS

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> William Herrin wrote : > I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory, > would start working as a result of software > upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator > intervention. If I couldn't do that, my debate > opponent was right -- a

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 18:02 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > It certainly would have been a higher level of pain in the short run, > but it also would have led to a much shorter period of pain. There's a thing in (biological) evolution that says a species cannot become less fit, even if that is the

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 5, 2019, at 13:36 , b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: >> >> OK… Let’s talk about how? >> >> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit >> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > William Herrin wrote: > > > I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in > theory, > > would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no > > configuration changes

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

William Herrin wrote: I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory, would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator intervention. I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P,

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:32 PM Michel Py wrote: > >> Michel Py wrote : > >> When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how long ago. > > > William Herrin wrote : > > 2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread titled "The myth of IPv6-IPv4

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

>> Michel Py wrote : >> When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how long ago. > William Herrin wrote : > 2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread titled > "The myth of IPv6-IPv4 interoperation." > On one side of the argument, folks saying that

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:34 AM Michel Py wrote: > > William Herrin wrote : > > I want to divert from the current flame war to make my biennial semi-serious reminder that it was at least theoretically possible to > > expand the IPv4 address space rather than make a whole new protocol. That we did

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 05:58:39PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > 8.8.4.5.13.9/40 > 8.8.4.5.17.168/40 > This is so unreadable to me :/ My brain keeps on wondering if this is an "IPv4+" or a phone number or a typo...

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> William Herrin wrote : > I want to divert from the current flame war to make my biennial semi-serious > reminder that it was at least theoretically possible to > expand the IPv4 address space rather than make a whole new protocol. That we > did not do so was a failure of imagination. >

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:48 PM Michel Py wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote : > > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands > 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit > address? > > With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally. > I want to

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

I think we're basically on the same page. But what I described wouldn't use port numbers to fake extended addressing, just a flag and some extra IP header for the extended addr bits. On October 6, 2019 at 21:12 li...@packetflux.com (Forrest Christian (List Account)) wrote: > I've been

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

I didn't quite say nothing would need to be changed, only that the changes would be by and large very minimal, some new cases in the existing IPv4 stacks, rather than an entirely new stack. Particularly for hosts, if this bit (flag, whatever) is set be sure to copy the entire IP packet into your

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/7/2019 7:37 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said: Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/7/19 4:37 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said: >> Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to >> the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's >> dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said: > Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to > the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's > dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically worthless. Riddle me this: Why then have

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/7/2019 2:03 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way forward we have. A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you.

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way forward we have. A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you. But, assuming you're expanding the address

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way forward we have. But, assuming you're expanding the address space, the simplest solution is to add the additional bits addresses at the end. I.E. every existing /32

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:47:24 -0400, b...@theworld.com said: > All a strictly IPv4 only host/router would need to understand in that > case is the IHL, which it does already, and how to interpret whatever > flag/option is used to indicate the presence of additional address > bits mostly to ignore

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 6, 2019 at 16:35 jhellent...@dataix.net (J. Hellenthal) wrote: > And in which part of the header is this to be added ? I assume you mean the additional address. The IHL provides for up to 60 bytes of IP header length. 20 bytes is needed for the usual IPv4 header so an additional 40

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

And in which part of the header is this to be added ? -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Oct 6, 2019, at 15:58, b...@theworld.com wrote: > >  >> On October 6, 2019 at 15:18

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 6, 2019 at 15:18 mpal...@hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) wrote: > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:36:50PM -0400, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > > On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > > > > > OK… Let’s talk about how? > > > > > > How would you have

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

>>> Owen DeLong wrote : >>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit >>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address? >> Michel Py wrote : >> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally. >> Which is not possible with the current

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:36:50PM -0400, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > > > OK… Let’s talk about how? > > > > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands > 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > > OK… Let’s talk about how? > > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit > addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address? A bit in the header or similar

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 4, 2019, at 20:23 , Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> On Oct 4, 2019, at 16:48 , Michel Py wrote: >> >>> Owen DeLong wrote : >>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit >>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 4, 2019, at 16:48 , Michel Py wrote: > >> Owen DeLong wrote : >> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit >> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address? > > With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally. > Which is not

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:48:33PM +, Michel Py wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote : > > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit > > addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address? > > With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally. That

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> Owen DeLong wrote : > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit > addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address? With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally. Which is not possible with the current IPv6 address format, if you want

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 17:54 , Matt Hoppes > wrote: > > I disagree on that. Ipv4 is very human readable. It is numbers. > > Ipv6 is not human numbers. It’s hex, which is not how we normally county. > > It is all water under the bridge now, but I really feel like ipv6 could have > been

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Matt Harris wrote: That is called "provider lock-in", which is the primary reason, when IPng WG was formed, why automatic renumbering is necessary for IPv6. If this is a concern, then get an allocation from your local RIR and announce it yourself. Then no provider lock-in based on address

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/4/19 7:45 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:13 AM Masataka Ohta wrote: Doug Barton wrote: And even if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan in place all you have to change is the prefix. This is the same as saying "If you need to

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Friday, 4 October, 2019 05:55, "Doug Barton" said: > ... unless you're large enough to have your own address space. And even > if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan > in place all you have to change is the prefix. And if this is hard, we should be beating up

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:13 AM Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Doug Barton wrote: > > > And even > > if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan > > in place all you have to change is the prefix. > This is the same as saying "If you need to change providers in IPv4, once you

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:42 PM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > >> Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal > >> of IPv6 with reasons. > >> > >> Lack of it is still a problem. > > > Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Doug Barton wrote: And even if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan in place all you have to change is the prefix. Your attempt to hype people that renumbering were easy has zero probability of success here. Except that it's not failing, It failed from the

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/3/19 8:41 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal of IPv6 with reasons. Lack of it is still a problem. Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss about IPv6 is that except in edge cases, you never have to renumber. You

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

I'm going to reply in some detail to your points here because they are very common arguments that have real answers. Those who have heard all this before are free to move on. :) You sound like someone who doesn't have experience with IPv6. I don't intend any criticism, I'm simply saying that

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Doug Barton wrote: Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal of IPv6 with reasons. Lack of it is still a problem. Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss about IPv6 is that except in edge cases, you never have to renumber. You get a massive address block that you can

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Mark Andrews wrote: Please explain how https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-update-parent-zones/ would not work. Update messages are designed to be forwarded and that includes signed UPDATE messages be they TSIG or SIG(0). Named already forwards UPDATE messages if your tell

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/3/19 5:35 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses,which as we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy. That's your opinion. But, as Mark Andrews said: > Actually you can do exactly the same thing for

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

John Levine wrote: Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal of IPv6 with reasons. News flash: nobody used the A6 RRTYPE which was intended to support IPv6 renumbering. In 2002, RFC 3363 made A6 experimental. In 2012, RFC 6563 made A6 historic. These days we all use

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 10:35 am, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > Doug Barton wrote: > >> Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses,which as >> we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy. > > That's your opinion. But, as Mark Andrews said: > > > Actually you

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

In article you write: >Doug Barton wrote: > >> Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses, >> which as we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy. Yup. >Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal >of IPv6 with reasons. News flash:

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/3/19 5:34 PM, John Levine wrote: In article you write: that gets me on to my small annoyance... /64 bit subnet masks for local networks. really? Yup. Making everything is a /64 is the best because means never again having to waste brain cycles on right-sizing subnets. And the

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Doug Barton wrote: Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses, which as we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy. That's your opinion. But, as Mark Andrews said: > Actually you can do exactly the same thing for glue. I show it not so easy. > Please

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

In article you write: >that gets me on to my small annoyance... /64 bit subnet masks for >local networks. really? Yup. > ALL of that address space and then throw such >a large range away on subnets commonly populated >with no more than a couple of hundred clients...maybe a few thousand >at

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 03:20:50PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Can you imagine keeping those v6 addresses in your head the same way? I don't have to imagine, I do it on a daily basis. Doesn't seem to cause me any grief. In my experience, IPv4 addresses which need to be used directly on a

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

--- aar...@gvtc.com wrote: From: "Aaron Gould" Thank God for DNS ;) No, just Paul Mockapetris... :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mockapetris scott

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On 10/3/19 13:13, Mark Andrews wrote: On 4 Oct 2019, at 4:35 am, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 10/2/19 15:03, Naslund, Steve wrote: In my experience, the biggest hurdle to installing a pure IPv6 has nothing to do with network gear or network engineers. That stuff I expect to support v6. This

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 4:35 am, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > On 10/2/19 15:03, Naslund, Steve wrote: >> In my experience, the biggest hurdle to installing a pure IPv6 has nothing >> to do with network gear or network engineers. That stuff I expect to >> support v6. This biggest hurdle is the

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 20:11:23 +0100, Alan Buxey said: > trivial-ish (these days) - you have so much choice...and eventually > decent routers doing SLAAC will finally be able to serve > other details such as DNS/time/etc via SLAAC - servers? give them Well... if you want that... > that gets me on

RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment

Thank God for DNS ;) -aaron -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alan Buxey Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 2:22 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment hi, > Go ahead and read your v4 address over the ph

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

hi, > Go ahead and read your v4 address over the phone and then do the same with > your v6 address. Which is easier? I do understand all about these addresses > both being binary underneath ( I've been doing this for over 30 years now). > However it is much easier to communicate using four

Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment

hi, the old UK reverse name notation actually comes from some sensible ideas - firstly from the big-endian processing methods - but also the most important part of the address comes first - ideal for global routing decisions early. who cares about the actual hostname , get to the actual TLD ;-)

  1   2   >