Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1)
So transport layer should somehow enhance the error check and/or correction mechanism. actually, I would put it in the application layer. I would have the application include some form of checksum (PGP signature, file CRC, whatever) to ensure for itself that what was sent was what was received. If there is no error recovery at the link layer, then an erronious set high-order bit in a packet length field might very likely leave input processes open listening for more data that will never come. But I agree that redundancy is a good idea. By the way, on the storage technology front, it seems that 3.4 terabytes will soon be pocket-sized and cost about $50 (!) http://www.keele.ac.uk/research/cmrkeele.htm Cheers, James
Re: Relation email - person (re: Mail sent to midcom)
At 17:18 13/02/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: I also wonder about Harald's sample - might this particular group of people be more likely to - understand the value of a stable email address - pick a ISP that provides good service and has good potential for longevity - have his/her own personal domain name - forward his/her mail from older addresses to newer ones. than the average email user? with 4.400 Yahoo accounts and 7.400 Hotmail accounts in the mix, I doubt that it is completey untypical .-) -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Relation email - person (re: Mail sent to midcom)
|-Original Message- |From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] |Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:41 AM |To: Mike O'Dell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Subject: Relation email - person (re: Mail sent to midcom) | |I recently had the dubious pleasure of sending out 40.000 |emails to a set of email addresses gathered (with the owners' approval!) over |a period of seven years. | |The result was roughly 10.000 bounces (naturally), dozens of |requests to merge multiple registrations for the same person, and on the |order of FIVE occurences of an email address previously used by one person |now being used by another. | |The mapping address - person is pretty strong, and mostly single-valued. |The mapping person - address is multivalued, and getting more so. | |Not quite "not working", if we take it for what it is. I would consider such results the fault of the list maintainer and not a fault in the email system. Much like physical addresses used within the postal system, anyone maintaining a list needs to provide a means to maintain the validity of the data. If the data is invalid it is a cost the person using the data has to carry. It doesn't mean that all the data is invalid, just the means to keep it current was inadequate. Most mailing lists for instance employ means to maintain the integrity of the subscribtions, including regular probes. There are means available for other types of lists, a lot depending on the usage and value. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
Re: what is NAT Good For ...
of course if NAT is so cool, why not make _every_ hop do NAT (Naughty Awful Terrible stuff) instead of MPLS (My Protocol's a Lot Slower) as a way of aggregate traffic engineering without recourse to level 2 (which we all know is making a lot less money than level 3 right now) i mean they are both label swapping schemes right, so if mpls is so cool, but NAT is the IP-holic approach, it ought to be fine, eh? cheers jon
Middlebox taxonomy draft BOF
If you are interested in middleboxes in general and a draft taxonomy of 20 different types of middlebox... See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-midtax-00.txt Plan on attending the midtax BOF in Minneapolis. Ad hoc mailing list thanks to Rob Austein: Post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Un)Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive:exists, but no web access to it yet Brian Carpenter
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix the NAT problem - true or not true? I assume with IPv6 there is no need for NATs. Who thinks they will still be around - humm maybe if the ISP charge a fortune for 4 IP addresses vs 1 IP address (IPv6 or IPv4). At 11:53 AM 2/2/2001 -0800, Greg Minshall wrote: Keith, perhaps. but I note that for many of the examples you quoted, "dealing with them" was not nearly as nice as "not having to deal with them". absolutely. i was very happy when we moved from the previous world to the (more or less pure) IP world. i will be very happy when we move from the NAT world to the (more or less pure) IPv6 world. Greg (who wrote email gateways in a past life) Michael W. Condry Director, Network Edge Technology
DNSng: where to discuss/get info?
Hello: Well, the current DNS was designed around 1983 by Mockapetris et. al. ( See also http://gnIETF.vlsm.org/127.txt ). AFAIK, it was based on assumptions like a "single root"/ "single person authority", a simple categorizing scheme (.edu, .gov, ...), etc. Unfortunately, nowadays, XYZZY lawyers believe that XYZZY is entitled to XYZZY.net, XYZZY.com, XYZZY.org, XYZZY.ALL-TLDs, etc. So the questions are: - why not design a new DNS scheme? - is there any WG, or organization, or list, or whatever which is actively discussing the TECHNICAL (not political) aspect of how a new DNS scheme should be? - for example, what is the technical problem if everyone is running hir own "address book"; so that "my-favorite-soda" or "soda" will be mapped to whatever favorite soda (Dr. Pepper for myself :-). - or, what is the technical problem, if creating about 40++ "alternate" TLDs like: "0", "1", ... "A", "B", "C", ... "Z", ".", Example: the classical ".com" will be mapped to TLD "m", etc. - is NameDroppers the answer? regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - Mr.LOPA-LOPA... HAMtastic,MENKEHstic,YUSRILbis...|Shaggy
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix the NAT problem - true or not true? depends on how you define "the NAT problem" - if you define it as a shortage of addresses, then IPv6 *does* solve the NAT problem - provided, of course, that the RIRs are willing to assign reasonable sized blocks (much larger than IPv4 assignments) and similarly, that ISPs do not charge onerous amounts to route reasonably sized address blocks to customers. - if you define it as the ability to "plug and ping" small networks into the Internet, then (as far as I can tell) we still need a small piece of protocol beyond IPv6 to have a "pure IPv6" plug-and-ping solution. in the interim, either PPP or DHCP will give you an IPv4 address; this combined with 6to4 gives you a /64 on a plug-and-ping basis, and the protocol work for this is already done. - if you define the NAT problem as the ability to easily renumber networks (or more precisely, the ability to avoid needing to renumber networks), then IPv6 probably still needs a bit of work until renumbering an IPv6 network is as painless an operation as "renumbering" an IPv4 network using a NAT. of course the NAT produces its own kind of pain, which you might or might not realize is part of the cost of using a NAT to renumber. - if you define the NAT problem as the ability to provide the security and illusion of security that folks get from NATs, rest assured that the same degree of security and illusion can be provided using IPv6 mechanisms. However, with IPv6, the NATs won't prevent applications that need stable addresses from having them. - if you define the NAT problem as the inability to run certain kinds of applications, then yes, IPv6 does solve those problems. however you have to modify your application to run IPv6. - if you define the NAT problem as the difficulty associated with trying to bilaterally connect together various IPv4 networks, each of which uses potentially overlapping address spaces, then yes IPv6 solves this problem. (IPv6 seems like a big win for B2B communications) so to answer your question succinctly I'd say "mostly true". I assume with IPv6 there is no need for NATs. Who thinks they will still be around - humm maybe if the ISP charge a fortune for 4 IP addresses vs 1 IP address (IPv6 or IPv4). it's probably misleading to think of IPv6 vs. NATs as an either-or situation. NATs will definitely be around for awhile - to provide connectivity for legacy v4-based applications and networks, (email and web will be primarily v4-based for a long time) and NAT-PT to provide some measure of interoperability between v6 and v4 apps. However, one hopes that NATs will not interfere with pure v6 connectivity, so that applications that are written for IPv6 will be able to rely on the increased functionality. Keith
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
to correct something I just miswrote: - if you define it as the ability to "plug and ping" small networks into the Internet, then (as far as I can tell) we still need a small piece of protocol beyond IPv6 to have a "pure IPv6" plug-and-ping solution. in the interim, either PPP or DHCP will give you an IPv4 address; this combined with 6to4 gives you a /64 on a plug-and-ping basis, and the protocol work for this is already done. it should read "...this, combined with 6to4 gives you a /48 on a plug-and-ping basis..." Keith
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
At 05:53 PM 2/14/2001 -0800, Michael W. Condry wrote: I assume with IPv6 there is no need for NATs. IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no, not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6. Rgds, -drc
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no, not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6. I don't think so - first, because IPv6 has more hooks for renumbering than v4 (though more work is needed); and second, because a lot of folks will want to use IPv6 precisely because they need to avoid NAT breakage. I'm not saying that there won't be any v6 NATs in the world (though we should solidly and firmly declare them to be a protocol violation), but they should be few and far between. Keith
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Keith, At 10:02 PM 2/14/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no, not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6. I don't think so - first, because IPv6 has more hooks for renumbering than v4 (though more work is needed); If end users are required to modify configuration files, you will see NAT so they don't have to. and second, because a lot of folks will want to use IPv6 precisely because they need to avoid NAT breakage. Technogeeks, perhaps. The vast majority of people on the Internet who are behind NATs most likely don't even know it. Rgds, -drc
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers (and no, not everyone can be a provider -- IPv6 uses CIDR, just like IPv4). Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6. I don't think so - first, because IPv6 has more hooks for renumbering than v4 (though more work is needed); If end users are required to modify configuration files, you will see NAT so they don't have to. not if the NATs cause more pain than modifying the config files. and second, because a lot of folks will want to use IPv6 precisely because they need to avoid NAT breakage. Technogeeks, perhaps. The vast majority of people on the Internet who are behind NATs most likely don't even know it. I presume that "technogeeks" includes networking professionals who can't make their B2B applications work reliably over NATs? there are two major classes of NAT users: (1) home users of "internet connection sharing" and (2) businesses using NATs to connect private networks to the Internet and to one another. both groups are generally aware that the NATs exist, though the home users might not use the term NAT to describe them and might not be as well versed in how they function. it's hardly surprising that professional network administrators are more likely than the average home user to understand the limitations of NATs, and the home user is often less demanding - the casual home user who just wants to be able to browse the web at the same time as the kids might never notice the difference. but overall, both kinds of users are learning that the presence of a NAT causes some things to break, just as people once had to learn that rewriting of email addresses across gateways caused things to break. a significant percentage of the folks who will drive v6 deployment will be those who have learned about those problems the hard way and are in need of a real solution. they won't be fooled again. Keith
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Dave, Technogeeks, perhaps. The vast majority of people on the Internet who are behind NATs most likely don't even know it. With all the discussion of Napster and so-called "peer to peer" networking, I think NATs are going to become far more visible to users as these applications grow in popularity. Today, you can use something like Gnutella if at least one party is not behind a NAT.
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
From: "David R. Conrad" [EMAIL PROTECTED] IPv6 does not solve the need to renumber if you change providers ... Until that issue is addressed, there will be NATs. Even for v6. Oh, I can't resist: It's completely appalling that when I move to a new house, my street address changes. It's such a hassle; I have to tell all my friends to update their address books, get new business cards, etc, etc, etc. Why do I have to change street addresses just because I moved? Can't ICANN^H^H^H^H^H the US Post Office fix this? No? Well, clearly they are in the pay of some evil nasty multi-nationals (or they *are* an evil, nasty multi-national). I demand a Congressional hearing at once! It's all a US Government plot to shaft the rest of the world! The UN needs to look into this! /Rant As long as IPv6 has only one namespace to say *who* you are, as well as *where* you are, your address will change when you change providers. As the old hackers say, "That's not a bug, that's a feature." Noel
