Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[Rick H Wesson]

Noel,

this stems from the lack of engineers intrest in politics, until its
too late.

-rick

On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:


> 
> PS: One wonders about the wattage level of the people on the commision,
> but I digress.
> 

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[Anthony Atkielski]

Greg Skinner writes:

> I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology
> news reports that the Commission on Online Child
> Protection is looking at dividing the IPv6 address
> space into regions that can be classified according to
> their "safety" for child access.

The ideas just get more and more stupid.

Are telephone numbers allocated based on whether or not the subscriber is
"child-safe"?  Think how useful it would be if they were.

Additionally, since community standards are wildly variable in this domain,
how would you allocate a "child-safe" zone suitable for everyone?  What
about organizations that want "Party-approved" zones or "non-Jewish" zones?

And even if this stupid idea were to come to fruition (alas! stupidity is
never a guarantee that something won't be actually implemented), the IPv6
address space would be exhausted in the blink of an eye.

It reminds me of current French efforts to prevent French surfers from
reaching certain forbidden information on Yahoo; funny that they don't seem
to be concerned about people calling forbidden numbers on the telephone.
The difference, of course, is that most French people know how the telephone
system works, but they've scarcely ever even seen a PC, and the Internet is
nothing more than a huge band of drug dealers, neo-Nazis, and pedophiles to
them (the current row concerns neo-Nazis).

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Donald E. Eastlake 3rd]

If IPv4 multihoming is leading to exponential growth of the routing
tables, maybe that's what will kill IPv4 and push people to IPv6.  My
understanding is that in IPv6 things are better because, to some
extent, you can multihome by having multiple addresses assigned by
your different providers.  Of course that can add a new exponentiality
based on your depth in the provider/sub-provder tree

Donald

From:  Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:11:49 +1000
To:  "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>At 04:40 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>Look at it this way.  We have about 75K routes in the "default-free
>>zone" now.
>
>No - that was March 2000 - now we have about 87,000 (www.telstra.net/ops/bgp)
>
>>...
>
>There are a number of scenarios which will make the routing system
>crash and burn - this is one of them. On the other hand even doing
>nothing will be a problem - we appear to have resumed exponential
>growth of the routing system again, presumably as multi-homing at
>the edges starts to be more and more common.
>
>   Geoff Huston
>
>

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Anthony Atkielski]

> We seem to be talking 5-6 orders of magnitude in
> speed here.  Even Moore's Law doesn't help in that range.

I don't see why all this processing power is required.  You look at the
incoming address, you figure out which outbound path can handle that
address, and you forward it.  Simple.  Even if the full address is a
thousand digits long, you only have to look at the digits around your level
to determine the next step in routing.

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[J. Noel Chiappa]

> From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> the last report I heard featured an interview with Don Telage of NSI.
> Apparently, the commission had considered doing this "zoning" based
> on TLDs, but now they're looking at IPv6 address space.  

Oh, goody.

No doubt all *sorts* of people would want to use such a mechanism. In
addition to various countries which implement absolute controls on what
information their citizens can see, think of all the others who will find
this mechanism appealing.

The RIAA and their ilk will want all those foreign sites that are hosting
DeCSS and Gnutella and all that sort of stuff placed in a class so that
people here in the US can be prevented from gaining access to them.

And of course the French and German governments will want a special class
for sites that have Nazi memorabilia.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The mind simply reels when one considers all the possibilies.

One hopes that ICANN will realize that opening *this* stack of TNT will get
them mixed up in something that will make the entire domain-names
controversy to date look like a wet match.

Noel

PS: One wonders about the wattage level of the people on the commision,
but I digress.

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[Sean Doran]

| good god we have the lobbyists trying to engineer the Internet
| now - everyone is an expert it seems. :-(

Thank heaven for the IPv6 "B Ark" that distracts such people
from real engineering issues.

Sean.

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[Fred Baker]

At 02:53 PM 8/11/00 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
>I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
>the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
>IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
>their "safety" for child access.

I wouldn't worry excessively about that. This is roughly comparable to the 
argument that there should be a DNS TLD ".kids" in which folks who have a 
non-porn web site can get a domain name. Best.com is now part of Verio, 
which is in turn becoming part of NTT. All of these are non-porn companies. 
Is that their most important aspect, one they are going to base their 
domain name one? nay, nay...

Addresses will be assigned by address registries to service providers, and 
in turn to subscribers to service providers. The commission presumably has 
some valid comment on what content should be accessible by children, but it 
has no idea whether or how that relates to the business structure of the 
Internet, and therefore to IPv6 addressing.

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[vinton g. cerf]

good god we have the lobbyists trying to engineer the Internet
now - everyone is an expert it seems. :-(

vint

At 06:19 PM 8/11/2000 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
> > the commission is not responsible for the assignment of IP address space
> > is it???
>
>No, but if they convince the address registries that it is necessary,
>and they implement it, I think we might still need NAT.
>
>FYI, the last report I heard featured an interview with Don Telage of
>NSI.  Apparently, the commission had considered doing this "zoning"
>based on TLDs, but now they're looking at IPv6 address space.
>
>--gregbo

=
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047


"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" 
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 
5-8 June 2001 
Sweden International Fairs 
Stockholm, Sweden 
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[Greg Skinner]

> the commission is not responsible for the assignment of IP address space
> is it???

No, but if they convince the address registries that it is necessary,
and they implement it, I think we might still need NAT.

FYI, the last report I heard featured an interview with Don Telage of
NSI.  Apparently, the commission had considered doing this "zoning"
based on TLDs, but now they're looking at IPv6 address space.

--gregbo

Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[vinton g. cerf]

the commission is not responsible for the assignment of IP address space
is it???

vint

At 02:53 PM 8/11/2000 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
>Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If a routeable prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
> > world population of 11 billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the
> > total IPv6 address space.
>
> > (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> > bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
> > 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.39 )
>
>I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
>the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
>IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
>their "safety" for child access.
>
>Depending on how this allocation is done (if it's done), couldn't this
>mean we will still need NAT?
>
>--gregbo

=
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047


"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" 
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 
5-8 June 2001 
Sweden International Fairs 
Stockholm, Sweden 
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Bill Manning]

% On the other hand even doing
% nothing will be a problem - we appear to have resumed exponential
% growth of the routing system again, presumably as multi-homing at
% the edges starts to be more and more common.
% 
%Geoff Huston


As predicted back in the cidr development days.  people multihome for
a number of reasons, not the least of which is the avoidance of a single
point of failure. Turning the routing system into the functional equivalent
of monoply pyramid will bring down the rath of the regulators, even if there
is "nothing" we can do.

-- 
--bill

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <003b01c003c6$3ffe9230$0a0a@contactdish>, "Anthony Atkielski" wr
ites:
>> The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds
>> to resolve an address into a route. The Internet
>> has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
>
>Build faster hardware.
>
>
We seem to be talking 5-6 orders of magnitude in speed here.  Even 
Moore's Law doesn't help in that range.

--Steve Bellovin

Re: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[Randall R. Stewart]

"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
> 
> > From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Oh, I can't resist:
> 
> > You haven't given a single technical argument that will convince
> > system experts in these big corporations that they have dug
> > themselves a "very nice hole". The meaningless rhetoric "WAP is bad"
> > doesn't convince any one.
> 
> Past history would say that given the investment in WAP (both in dollars,
> and in professional terms), I'd be astonished if the most convincing and
> correct reasoning had any impact.
> 
> If I had time, I'd give you a long list of protocols (many from the IETF)
> where the designers were utterly resistant to attempts to explain to them
> why their protocol was fundamentally flawed. For a lot of people, nothing
> other than brutal failure in the market seems to convince them.
> 
> > What makes you think that the system experts from Motorola, Nortel,
> > Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months needed
> > to learn protocol design lessons. ... about architecture and
> > addressing lessons.
> 
> What makes you think they don't?

It is very very difficult for someone with a Bell Shaped head
to leave the "circuit switched model". Pushing IP at my former
employer was like pushing LARGE rocks up hill. It can be done,
but it is hard, and there are constantly folks trying to
roll the rocks back down the hill sigh.. I guess that
is one of the fundamental reasons why I left... and yes many
of the folks need some lessons in protocol design.. not all of
them, but I could give a list of some that do need quite a few lessons
:-<

There are also amazing market pressures on these folks as well so
some of it is understandable.. but it is rough to live with it
though... :-(

R

R


-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Matt Crawford]

> Does this mean that every router will have to handle 2^48 routing table
> entries and that this vast amount of information must be sent over the
> internet on every routing table update?
> Salavat

In a word, no.

In two words, Hell no!

See RFC 2374.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Brian E Carpenter]

Try reading one of the books on Internet routing, there are
several good ones.

   Brian

more on IPv6 address space exhaustion

[Greg Skinner]

Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If a routeable prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
> world population of 11 billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the
> total IPv6 address space.

> (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
> 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.39 )

I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
their "safety" for child access.

Depending on how this allocation is done (if it's done), couldn't this
mean we will still need NAT?

--gregbo

Re: imode far superior to wap

[James P. Salsman]

Masataka,

Seriously, I would like to get a pair of Simple Internet Phone 
prototype terminal adapters.  You said they can be purchased.  I 
have not been able to find any other references to them.  Please 
explain how they can be obtained.

Brijesh,

In answer to your questions:

> What makes you think that the system experts from Motorola, Nortel,
> Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months needed
> to learn protocol design lessons[?]

The fact that they went to great lengths to design a closed protocol 
after decades of evidence in favor of open protocols has piled up, 
for starters.

> Doesn't it occur to you that there may be reasons for decisions in
> the design that you may not be aware?  Think!

What others than simple greed do you think there are?

Cheers,
James

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Geoff Huston]

At 04:40 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>Look at it this way.  We have about 75K routes in the "default-free
>zone" now.


No - that was March 2000 - now we have about 87,000 (www.telstra.net/ops/bgp)


>   If we just assigned addresses sequentially, we'd need a
>route for every endpoint.  There are what, 100,000,000 nodes today, and more
>tomorrow?  We can't handle 3 orders of magnitude increase in the size
>of that table, let alone what it will be in a few years.


There are a number of scenarios which will make the routing system
crash and burn - this is one of them. On the other hand even doing
nothing will be a problem - we appear to have resumed exponential
growth of the routing system again, presumably as multi-homing at
the edges starts to be more and more common.

   Geoff Huston

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[John Day]

At 19:38 -0400 8/10/00, Fred Baker wrote:
>At 01:33 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Corzine, Gordie wrote:
>>Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map
>>to routing information however we may code it?
>
>well, that is essentially what has happened in the telephone network, at
>least the wireless portion of it. Your telephone number is no longer
> but is essentially a random
>number which is used to look up your E.214 IMSI in a database, find the
>current topological location of the telephone, and then place a
>circuit-switched route to it. You move, the route follows you.
>
>What the Internet architecture tries to do is get rid of the
>circuit-switched route and the large-scale database. We do that by
>embedding topology information in the IP Address. This is fundamentally the
>difference between a connection oriented and connectionless network.
>
>No, it's not a stupid question. It's a paradigm question. You're asking the
>same thing Dave Mills asked in the mid-1970's: are we better off with
>circuit-switched routes or connectionless routes? Kleinrock's premise,
>underlying packet networking as we know it, is that the latter is a winner
>for survivability reasons. Those who form the bell-shaped side of the
>business tend to be of the other opinion. This constitutes something of a
>religious divide.
>
>As to the difference between the two, you can think of it in terms of
>telling someone how to get from Los Angeles California to Jacksonville
>Beach Florida. There are three ways:
>
>   - I can give the guy a map and tell him to find his own way
> (that may be Active Networking)
>   - I can tell him to get on Highway 10 and go east until he can't go any
> further
>   - I can tell him to get on Highway 10, go east until he comes to a
>junction,
> and then ask someone for directions.
>
>The first is pretty complex when you think in terms of packet networks. The
>second is pretty simple, but gives the driver (packet) no options. The
>third is more survivable, but requires enough intelligence in the driver to
>ask the right question. The third is connectionless networking as
>implemented in the IP Internet. The topological address is what he needs to
>ask that question.
>
>Next issue is "so how do we get the right address?" - aha, something that
>you translate into a topological address for the purpose of routing is a
>name. The ITU even has a formal definition somewhere that puts it in so
>many words. We have names - DNS names.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Brian E Carpenter]

"Salavat R. Magazov" wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Corzine, Gordie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?
> 
> > "Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
> > >
> > > Seriously,
> > >
> > > As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs
> to
> > > for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
> > > address assignment.
> >
> > This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
> > every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would
> > consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.
> >
> > (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> > bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
> > 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.39 )
> 
> Does this mean that every router will have to handle 2^48 routing table
> entries and that this vast amount of information must be sent over the
> internet on every routing table update?

No, of course not. The routes will aggregate exactly like CIDR routes.
In principle at least, we hope to see a default free routing table
of only about 2^13 or 2^14 entries, less than today.

   Brian

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Matt Crawford]

> Phone numbers have moved from being direct as originally implemented
> to being a level of indirection, thanks to a lot of behind-the-scenes
> mucking about. The Internet introduced DNS to gain that same level of
> indirection. Phone numbers are now portable; DNS names are portable.

I don't agree with that.  Host names, and a means for translating
them to addresses, existed before DNS.  Introduction of hierarchical
naming and DNS let the maintenance of this translation mechanism be
decentralized.

Hm, wasn't this thread started by a suggestion that so-called
addresses be assigned under centralized control?

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Salavat R. Magazov]

Hello

What is the difference between plain address (I mean house address like 47
Ulcombe gardens, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom) and IP address. The
former is scalable to whatever size one may want and the router for plain
address (i.e. post office in USA, for example) does not have to know about
47, Ulcombe and so on it only must know what direction UK is located. Why
not to take this analogy and use it in the Internet. The difference is not
very big, since plain mail system is connectionless.

Regards
Salavat

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Salavat R. Magazov]

- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Corzine, Gordie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?


> "Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
> >
> > Seriously,
> >
> > As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs
to
> > for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
> > address assignment.
>
> This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
> every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would
> consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.
>
> (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
> 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.39 )

Does this mean that every router will have to handle 2^48 routing table
entries and that this vast amount of information must be sent over the
internet on every routing table update?
Salavat

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Anthony Atkielski]

> The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds
> to resolve an address into a route. The Internet
> has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.

Build faster hardware.

RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[J. Noel Chiappa]

> From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Oh, I can't resist:

> You haven't given a single technical argument that will convince
> system experts in these big corporations that they have dug
> themselves a "very nice hole". The meaningless rhetoric "WAP is bad"
> doesn't convince any one.

Past history would say that given the investment in WAP (both in dollars,
and in professional terms), I'd be astonished if the most convincing and
correct reasoning had any impact.

If I had time, I'd give you a long list of protocols (many from the IETF)
where the designers were utterly resistant to attempts to explain to them
why their protocol was fundamentally flawed. For a lot of people, nothing
other than brutal failure in the market seems to convince them.

> What makes you think that the system experts from Motorola, Nortel,
> Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months needed
> to learn protocol design lessons. ... about architecture and
> addressing lessons. 

What makes you think they don't?

Noel

RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[Jeffrey Altman]

> You haven't given a single technical argument that will convince
> system experts in these big corporations that they have dug themselves
> a "very nice hole". The meaningless rhetoric "WAP is bad" doesn't
> convince any one.

The problem that WAP has is that it is not used for end to end
connections.  WAP will protect the data from the wireless device to a
proxy server which must be able to decrypt the data so that it can be
retransmitted over a SSL/TLS connection to the real HTTP server.
That means that I as a corporate service provider MUST trust the
wireless provider's security and their promise not to look at my
data.  I'm sorry, but this is not a system that I will rely on.
Since WAP is not end to end, it is of no use to me.



  Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer
 The Kermit Project * Columbia University
   612 West 115th St * New York, NY * 10025 * USA
 http://www.kermit-project.org/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Sean Doran]

Fred Baker asks:

| When I build a telephone out of an IP dialler attached to 
| someone's waist, a modulator on their necklace, and an earphone attached to 
| their earring, all connected by IP on BlueTooth, what addresses do I put on 
| the different components of the telephone?

RFC-1918 for all but one "outside" address on the component which does NAT.

Note that the "outside" address may also be an RFC-1918 address, and ideally
should be gotten automatically via DHCP.

Better question: what are the DNS names of the components, and how
are they published to the "outside" world?

Sean.

RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[Briancon Alain-FAB005]

as one of the technical strategists from motorola who worked on wap, i can
assure all that business and technical constraints and optimizations were
paramount in the design of WAP. WAP has good stuff and bad stuff. it has
implications on technology and business models. rarely do things happen but
accident in the business world.

convergence divergence between WAP, I-mode, XML, and whatever else comes
will follow the same tribulations.

regards,

alain

-Original Message-
From: Brijesh Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:18 AM
To: 'John Day'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)


> -Original Message-
> From: John Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the
> >application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers
> >couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and
TCP.
> >i-mode is interesting because it uses a sub-set of html, which
makes
> >life lot easier for web based application designers.
>
> Then you need to learn a little bit more about protocol
> design, WAP, and
> the limitations implied by the choices they made.  WAP dug
> themselves a
> very nice hole.

Jon,

What makes you think that the system experts from Motorola, Nortel,
Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months needed
to learn protocol design lessons. Doesn't it occur to you that there
may be reasons for decisions in the design that you may not be aware?
Think!

You haven't given a single technical argument that will convince
system experts in these big corporations that they have dug themselves
a "very nice hole". The meaningless rhetoric "WAP is bad" doesn't
convince any one.

> >NAT *breaks the end-to-end model of IP*. The biggest problem with
NAT
> >is that you can't deliver "push" applications from a server in the
> >global realm to devices in the NAT world without using weird proxy
> >mechanisms. If you do that, that is nothing but a different
> version of
> >"WAP".
>
> Once again, you need to learn a bit more about architecture
> and addressing.

Again, what makes you think that the system experts from Motorola,
Nortel, Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months
needed to learn about architecture
and addressing lessons. Doesn't it occur to you that there may be
reasons for decisions in the design that you may not be aware?  Think!

> So far, I have not seen any"thing NATs break" that good architecture
> implies that they shouldn't.  The IETF chose to have NATs now
> they have
> them, they will have to learn to live with them.  They aren't
> going away.

I am still looking for a method, that doesn't break end to end
paradigm, to deliver "push" applications from a server in global realm
to cellular devices connected with NAT.

Either accept NAT can't provide end to end solutions, or come up with
a solution.


Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.

btw: Some of us have developed systems and devices both on wireless
and wired side. It is easy to criticize than to come up with
alternative solutions.

Re: non-engineers

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:38:18 BST, Lloyd Wood said:
> > Also, whether or not Thomas J Watson said 5 or not, it's interesting to go
> > back and look at how many of the beasts IBM actually *DID* sell - I do believe
> > that IBM installed one system "on display" in NYC where passers-by could see
> > the system.  And only 5 or 6 others of that model were made, unless I misremember
> > my history.
> 
> Wood's maxim: those that misremember their history are doomed to
> repeat it. On mailing lists.

I've been notified by somebody who was THERE that the first machine at
IBM World was the SSEC was a one-off, and the second was an IBM 701, which
had a production run of about 20.

I stand corrected, having confused the first and second machines, and
being a factor of 4 off.  It's been a while since I read the book on
IBM's early history, and I personally didn't show up till the very end
of the S/360/Dec-20 days...
-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech


 PGP signature

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Sean Doran]

John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

| To do nothing can be far more dangerous (as proven by the disdain for NAT).  

The disdain for NAT is non-uniform.  Personally, I rather like NAT.

| Can IPv6 be worse for the net than NAT?

IPv6 and IPv4 will coexist for a time; the topology of the (large)
IPv4 Internet and the (tiny) IPv6 Internet are discontiguous, and
is unlikely to cease being so before IPv6 curls up and dies.

There are real operational costs to maintaining ships-in-the-night
multiprotocol networks; the maintenance cost of such networks is one
factor in why we don't see DECNET Phase IV, IPX or CLNS being forwarded
by equipment in the core of the IPv4 Internet.

NAT and inter-protocol header translators (e.g. FAITH or 6to4, 
ironically written by Carpenter and Moore, who both really hate NAT) 
totally eliminate the near-term need to even consider ships-in-the-night 
in the core.  They also can reduce the weak pressure on the IPv4
address space by aggregating multiple hosts behind a single (IPv4) address.

Sean.

Re: imode far superior to wap

[John Stracke]

Masataka Ohta wrote:

> > The guy from NTT Docomo who spoke at Adelaide mentioned it.  I don't remember
> > details, though.
>
> The detail you wrote in IETF ML on:
>
> Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 14:30:54 -0400
>
> in
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> is
>
> : Didn't someone from DOCOMO present in Adelaide, and say they were
> : planning to go to running IP in the handsets?
>
> That's all.
>
> I guess you don't understand the phrase "end-to-end", the essence of
> the Internet.

Of course I do.  Why are you insulting me? And why are you treating my former post
as the only existing information on the topic?

He *did* say they intended to go to IP; I'm pretty sure he said they wanted to go
to end-to-end IP.  Unfortunately, my notes from the plenary are pretty sketchy,
and the proceedings just have his slides, which talk about "Further convergence to
IETF Internet standard" once they start deploying 3G, but don't give details.

--
/==\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=|
|eCal Corp.  |"HTTP is what happens in the absence of good |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|design." -- Keith Moore  |
\==/

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Fred Baker]

At 04:57 AM 8/11/00 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I have an idea:  Let's merge IP addresses with telephone numbers.  A person
>will have one IP address for each telephone number he owns, and vice versa,
>and the two numbers will be the same.

great idea. When I build a telephone out of an IP dialler attached to 
someone's waist, a modulator on their necklace, and an earphone attached to 
their earring, all connected by IP on BlueTooth, what addresses do I put on 
the different components of the telephone?

But we're still mixing addresses and numbers. An address gives you 
topological location; a name translates to an address. All the games you 
want to play with expanding and extending the telephone number are games 
with the name. We still need an address.

RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[Brijesh Kumar]

> -Original Message-
> From: John Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the
> >application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers
> >couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and
TCP.
> >i-mode is interesting because it uses a sub-set of html, which
makes
> >life lot easier for web based application designers.
>
> Then you need to learn a little bit more about protocol
> design, WAP, and
> the limitations implied by the choices they made.  WAP dug
> themselves a
> very nice hole.

Jon,

What makes you think that the system experts from Motorola, Nortel,
Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months needed
to learn protocol design lessons. Doesn't it occur to you that there
may be reasons for decisions in the design that you may not be aware?
Think!

You haven't given a single technical argument that will convince
system experts in these big corporations that they have dug themselves
a "very nice hole". The meaningless rhetoric "WAP is bad" doesn't
convince any one.

> >NAT *breaks the end-to-end model of IP*. The biggest problem with
NAT
> >is that you can't deliver "push" applications from a server in the
> >global realm to devices in the NAT world without using weird proxy
> >mechanisms. If you do that, that is nothing but a different
> version of
> >"WAP".
>
> Once again, you need to learn a bit more about architecture
> and addressing.

Again, what makes you think that the system experts from Motorola,
Nortel, Lucent, Erricson, Nokia who developed WAP over several months
needed to learn about architecture
and addressing lessons. Doesn't it occur to you that there may be
reasons for decisions in the design that you may not be aware?  Think!

> So far, I have not seen any"thing NATs break" that good architecture
> implies that they shouldn't.  The IETF chose to have NATs now
> they have
> them, they will have to learn to live with them.  They aren't
> going away.

I am still looking for a method, that doesn't break end to end
paradigm, to deliver "push" applications from a server in global realm
to cellular devices connected with NAT.

Either accept NAT can't provide end to end solutions, or come up with
a solution.


Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.

btw: Some of us have developed systems and devices both on wireless
and wired side. It is easy to criticize than to come up with
alternative solutions.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Masataka Ohta]

Sean;

> Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:
> 
> | > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago.  Why
> | > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
> |
> | The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
> | into a route. The Internet has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
> 
> You are missing the difference between "what" and "where".
> 
> The telephone company takes milliseconds to translate the equivalent
> of 6.6.9.9.9.6.6.8.6.4.e164.net into the equivalent of 192.36.143.3.
> 
> That is, the phone number is merely an identity name, which is converted
> into a location name by a database lookup.

In that sense, DNS names are randomly (more aggressive than sequentially)
assigned addresses.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[John Day]

At 11:43 PM -0400 8/10/00, Vijay Gill wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
>  > > The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
>  > > how to do that.  We have to make routing scale, and
>  > > that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
>  > > structured addresses.
>  >
>  > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago.  Why
>  > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
>
>Oh god, not this argument again.
>
>This is the circuit vs connectionless debate.  I am sure if you do a
>search on Kleinrock and Mills in open literature, you will find all sorts
>of reasonings behind why this divide exists.
>
>To grossly oversimplify things, the phone systems do a relatively slow
>setup and once it is set up, let it stay till it is done and then tear it
>down.  There isn't a phone company that does setups and teardowns (if I
>may stretch the term) at a rate that can match the connections initiated
>and torn down involving tcp/ip for http alone that pass through a core
>router in any promising local ISP.

Actually it has less to do with the connectionless/connection debate 
and more to do with what they are naming.  What the phone companies 
did (and the Internet as yet to do), was precisely what John Shoch 
outlined in his paper over 20 years ago and that Saltzer expanded on 
not quite 10 years later.  They made the location independent 
"addresses" application names and kept the location dependent names, 
i.e the addresses on which they do their routing.  These network 
addresses are the same as the ones they have always been using but 
they are only internal.  It is just that they used a similar syntax 
for both to give people the impression they were actually doing 
something else.  But the syntax of the names has nothing to do with 
their semantics.

Now, it is the case that most communication with applications both in 
the phone system and on the Internet is connection based so this 
mapping does not have to be done too often.  So there is a connection 
(no pun intended) but it is distinctly secondary.  However, it 
remains that it is applications that should have location independent 
names and network addresses that should have location dependent names.

Take care,
John

RE: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[John Day]

At 8:00 PM -0700 8/10/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  > > Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model
>  > > and i-mode.  WAP does an application gateway and uses no Internet
>  > > protocols.  At least, i-mode is using IP, TCP, HTTP, etc.
>
>  > Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the
>  > application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers
>  > couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP.
>
>I agree that most users don't know or care what transport they use. However,
>the choice of transport and network layer protocols has real consequences, and
>some of those consequences are things that subscribers do care about.
>
>Your own example illustrates this quite nicely. As it happens I've dealt with
>operating Internet application protocols over CLNP/CONS and TP0/TP4, and the
>transport-level gateways this sort of practice engenders are all too often a
>trouble spot for the users of the service. And these were small scale
>deployments. Large scale stuff would be even more problematic.

For the record, the protocol design problems of WAP have little to do 
with anything that you or Ohta are talking about.  A quick look at 
the WAP protocols, shows this. The WAP designers have made protocol 
design decisions that severely limit their ability to succeed.

My previous note was very much to the point.  WAP most closely 
resembles Videotext.  In some sense, one could conclude that the 
designers of WAP were assuming that it would fail.  Hence, they 
developed an architecture that can not exploit its success or exploit 
new technology. Many of the errors they have made are the same ones, 
we saw the PTTs make with Videotext.  In fact, they are so similar 
that without knowing the age of the designers I can't tell if it was 
accidental or on purpose.  If WAP is widely successful and/or as new 
technology appears, a wholesale replacement of WAP will be required 
that can be exploited by others to steal their customers.

The WAP architecture is fundamentally flawed ways in significant ways 
that i-mode is not.  I-mode is in a much better position to 
capitalize on its success.  And it has little if anything to do with 
the knee jerks about NATs or "CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP" 
none of which had anything to do with Videotext.  I suggest you read 
the WAP specs and see for yourselves.

Take care,
john

Re: non-engineers

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:57:01 MDT, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> Only people who are both innumerate and ignorant of the contexts and
> meanings of both the 640K and 5 computers/world remarks say such things.
> For example, in its context, the 640K remark was as reasonable as the
> partitioning of the phsical and virtual address spacees of the computers
> that were used to compose the recent remarks.

Also, whether or not Thomas J Watson said 5 or not, it's interesting to go
back and look at how many of the beasts IBM actually *DID* sell - I do believe
that IBM installed one system "on display" in NYC where passers-by could see
the system.  And only 5 or 6 others of that model were made, unless I misremember
my history.

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech



 PGP signature

Re: non-engineers

[Randall R. Stewart]

Vernon Schryver wrote:

> 
> Never mind that anyone who bothered to read what Brian wrote knows that
> he didn't say that the IPv6 space could never be used up, such as by giving
> everyone a ridiculous number of prefixes.  Nothing is foolproof.
> 
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" :-)

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Brian E Carpenter]

Sean, I agree with you. I was trying to make it simple. 

   Brian

Sean Doran wrote:
> 
> Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:
> 
> | > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago.  Why
> | > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
> |
> | The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
> | into a route. The Internet has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
> 
> You are missing the difference between "what" and "where".
> 
> The telephone company takes milliseconds to translate the equivalent
> of 6.6.9.9.9.6.6.8.6.4.e164.net into the equivalent of 192.36.143.3.
> 
> That is, the phone number is merely an identity name, which is converted
> into a location name by a database lookup.
> 
> The principal difference between hop-by-hop packet-based networks and
> circuit-based networks is that in the former the location name does
> not require negotiations among the intermediate systems, or between
> the first-hop IS and the originating end system.  There is a simple
> assumption that each hop will be able to make a reasonable forwarding
> decision on any location address, even if the location address is
> "unexpected".   In circuit-based networks, this is not generally the case.
> 
> The means and costs of translating a "what" address into a "where"
> address are often strikingly similar in both circuit-based and
> hop-by-hop packet-based networks.
> 
> Sean.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Sean Doran]

Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:

| > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago.  Why
| > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
|
| The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
| into a route. The Internet has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.

You are missing the difference between "what" and "where".

The telephone company takes milliseconds to translate the equivalent
of 6.6.9.9.9.6.6.8.6.4.e164.net into the equivalent of 192.36.143.3.

That is, the phone number is merely an identity name, which is converted
into a location name by a database lookup.

The principal difference between hop-by-hop packet-based networks and
circuit-based networks is that in the former the location name does
not require negotiations among the intermediate systems, or between
the first-hop IS and the originating end system.  There is a simple
assumption that each hop will be able to make a reasonable forwarding 
decision on any location address, even if the location address is 
"unexpected".   In circuit-based networks, this is not generally the case.

The means and costs of translating a "what" address into a "where"
address are often strikingly similar in both circuit-based and
hop-by-hop packet-based networks.

Sean.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[John Kristoff]

"Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
> Look, my days as an engineer are a distant memory, so I won't try to work
> this out in detail.  Maybe there are irrefutable reasons why this can't be
> done, but I do believe the current architecture will lead to premature
> exhaustion of the address space.

It will take far longer to design and deploy something that is so
technically elegant it solves all problems and pleases everyone.  At
some point you simply have to move forward.  To do nothing can be far
more dangerous (as proven by the disdain for NAT).  Can IPv6 be worse
for the net than NAT?  If premature depletion of IPv6 addresses is the
biggest problem IPv6 ends up encountering I'd say the net is in good
shape.  It's probably more likely that new problems no one had
considered will arise.  I see rough consensus, move forward.

John

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Brian E Carpenter]

"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
> 
> This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given
> to
> every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we
> would
> consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.
> 
> that's what they said about never needing more than 640kb of memory in a
> computer..
> we'll never need more than that!

Please think very carefully about the orders of magnitude involved here. The
two cases are not comparable.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Brian E Carpenter]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
> > how to do that.  We have to make routing scale, and
> > that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
> > structured addresses.
> 
> The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago.  Why
> the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.

The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
into a route. The Internet has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.

Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Brian E Carpenter]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> Brian Carpenter writes:
> 
> > This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable
> > prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
> > world population of 11 billion, we would
> > consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address
> > space.
> 
> Surely you recall the quotation attributed to Thomas J. Watson: "The world
> will never need more than five computers."

Indeed, although he probably never said it. That's why we didn't pick
64 bits for the IPv6 address.

   Brian

non-engineers

[Vernon Schryver]

  This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
  every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would
  consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.

> that's what they said about never needing more than 640kb of memory in a
> computer..
> we'll never need more than that!

] As soon as some resource becomes available, something is developed that
] uses as much of that resource as possible - this is a fact of life and is
] natural progression, it's how we develop new technology. Progression in
] any area is a Good Thing, I would be worried if we didn't use IPv6 to it's
] full extent.


Only people who are both innumerate and ignorant of the contexts and
meanings of both the 640K and 5 computers/world remarks say such things.
For example, in its context, the 640K remark was as reasonable as the
partitioning of the phsical and virtual address spacees of the computers
that were used to compose the recent remarks.

Never mind that anyone who bothered to read what Brian wrote knows that
he didn't say that the IPv6 space could never be used up, such as by giving
everyone a ridiculous number of prefixes.  Nothing is foolproof.


Now that we've had our semi-annual dose of address space silliness and
routing foolishness, could we please go back to the business of the IETF,
which is apparently spam mixed with endless repetitions of unreadable
tracts somehow related to Nazis and San Francisco Bay Area museums?


Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]

rpc

[Adrian Mangeac]

I need to implement a simple rpc mechanism for java and I don't how to. Can
anybody help me with some sources or some links where i can find some
support ?

Thank you !

RE: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Steven Cotton]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Rakers, Jason wrote:

>   This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was
> given to every human, using a predicted world population of 11
> billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address
> space.
> 
> that's what they said about never needing more than 640kb of memory in a
> computer..
> we'll never need more than that!

As soon as some resource becomes available, something is developed that
uses as much of that resource as possible - this is a fact of life and is
natural progression, it's how we develop new technology. Progression in
any area is a Good Thing, I would be worried if we didn't use IPv6 to it's
full extent.

-- 
steven

RF Modulation Standards

[Manohar Menon]

Dear all 

 Can anyone point me to a right site where consist of articles on RF
modulation standards?

Thanks 
mano

Thanks and Best Regards
 Have a Good Day 

 Manohar Menon 
 Fixed Network Planning Products
 Plot 12155  ( Lot 13),  
 Jalan Delima 1/1,
 Subang Hi-Tech Ind. Est Park 
 4 Shah Alam
 Selangor
 Malaysia 
 Tel : 006 03 580 1967 
 Fax : 006 03 580 1412

>>> Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/11 6:41 PM >>>
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> I have an idea:  Let's merge IP addresses with telephone numbers. 

You can already type a dot quad on any existing telephone handset,
by
say 4#17#168#6*. This obvious fact has been shockingly
underutilised.

Using this could allow a dialler to set up a connection via a telco
gateway (which uses an IP address from a pool if you haven't paid
the extra to get a permanent IP address allocated to your phone) to
a
designated VoIP port at the endhost with the address of the IP no
you
typed.

(If there's no response on any VoIP port, the gateway can try port
80
and starts reading you a webpage, so you're into the usual expected
automated response menu system with zillions of pointless options
and
no chance of ever reaching a real human being. To surf the web from
your old POTS phone, you'll have to rely on the phone company
providing a printed directory of selected DNS A records once a
year.)

The beauty of that approach is that if you've identified your phone
to
the telco gateway at service activation as being in the 4.17 subnet
for convenience purposes (same building/near the network, etc.),
168#6* will suffice. Hey, local numbers are shorter, and we've just
reinvented the company PABX with trendy IP dialtone.

Dot quads are about as hard to remember as phone numbers are, so
no change there - until IPv6 takes off, anyway.

L.

and everyone will see the value permanent addresses!

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>PGP


Disclaimer note:

Confidential information may be contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted 
with it ('Message'). If you are not the addressee indicated in this Message (or 
responsible for delivery of this Message to such person), you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this Message or any part 
thereof is strictly prohibited. In such a case, you should delete this Message 
immediately and advise the sender by return e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other 
information in this Message that do not relate to the official business of Maxis shall 
be understood as neither given nor endorsed by Maxis. 

RE: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Rakers, Jason]

This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given
to
every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we
would
consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.



that's what they said about never needing more than 640kb of memory in a
computer..
we'll never need more than that!

Jason

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 4:31 PM
> To:   Corzine, Gordie
> Cc:   '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject:  Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?
> 
> "Corzine, Gordie" wrote:
> > 
> > Seriously,
> > 
> > As was pointed out recently, IPV6 will croak much sooner than it needs
> to
> > for the simple reason that we structure routing intelligence into the
> > address assignment.
> 
> This is some sort of urban legend. If a routeable prefix was given to
> every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would
> consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space.
> 
> (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or
> 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.39 )
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Brian E Carpenter 
> Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
> On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
> Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
> Non-IBM email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: end-to-end w/i-Mode? (was Re: imode far superior to wap)

[Masataka Ohta]

Ned;

> > > Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model
> > > and i-mode.  WAP does an application gateway and uses no Internet
> > > protocols.  At least, i-mode is using IP, TCP, HTTP, etc.
> 
> > Who cares what protocol a device runs as long as it delivers the
> > application that satisfies its intended users? Most subscribers
> > couldn't care less if i-mode used CLNP and TP4 instead of IP and TCP.
> 
> I agree that most users don't know or care what transport they use.

No one cares, because intended users don't care and unintended users
use something else.

But it is an application specific issue to be discussed outside of
IETF (maybe in W3C).

Masataka Ohta

Re: imode far superior to wap

[Masataka Ohta]

Nilsson;

> > I'm afraid that ssh for phone is just another telephantisms. :-)
> 
> Compared to your much healthier view, yes. I do agree that it is very
> interesting. I was perhaps thinking the same but failed to express; the
> hand terminal is going to be a computing device with voice capability
> rather than a phone with datacom kludges. Then it is immediately obvious
> why one wants to make a VT-style terminal connection to it. :-) (ie SSH)

Huh?

You may have your reasons. However, commercially speaking, next
obvious step of the evolution of mobile Internet terminals is
removal of ten keys replaced by those of Nintendos and Play
Stations.

People will be busy to play network games with their own special
protocols over flat rated mobile Internet.

That's why end to end transparancy is commecially important.

People can still input numbers and other characters slowly (some
quickly) for less important applications like phone calling or
web browsing.

Masataka Ohta