Oh dear! I did actually say I am already conducting a survey! And yes it is
about IP not just about IPv6 or IPv4.
I hope that this survey will be one of several initiatives to help us better
understand IP layer transformations and get us away from the current spate
of opinion to an evidential
Scott,
--On 19. november 2004 12:17 -0500 scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IAD will be responsible for presenting this
budget to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as part of ISOC's annual financial
planning process. The IAOC is responsible for ensuring the suitability
of the
Peter Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Run a market survey and you will find out why people buy these NAT
devices. It shouldn't be that hard, you can hire one of many consumer
research firms to do that kind of quantative research for you.
Who needs market research? All you have to do is look at the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment.
I hear a lot of muttering about NATs being
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 15:52 +, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP
At 09:44 AM 11/22/04 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Who needs market research? All you have to do is look at the cost-feature
profile of the most popular NATs and notice who they were designed for.
Those vendors have already done the market research and bet real money on
the results.
Yes, but
At 08:33 AM 11/22/04 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
The one address you actually do care about is that of the server you
mentioned. If the server is behind the NAT, you have a configuration on
the Linksys that translates a certain set of TCP and UDP port numbers when
addressed to the Linksys to the
On 11/22/2004 11:33 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
So I will argue that the value of (2) is ephemeral. It is not an objective,
it is an implementation, and in an IPv6 world you would implement in a
slightly different fashion.
That's right--the device would get a range (or block) of addresses and
At 11:33 AM 11/22/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 09:44 AM 11/22/04 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Who needs market research? All you have to do is look at the
cost-feature profile of the most popular NATs and notice who they were
designed for. Those vendors have already done the market research and
--On Monday, 22 November, 2004 08:33 -0800 Fred Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Yes, but be careful with that. What has happened at Linksys
and others is that they have come up with a simple
configuration that allows them to sell a pre-configured device
to a client, advertise a few
At 12:35 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
One potentially technical hurdle here is the way that the device discovers
that a range/block of addresses is available to it. Some kind of DHCP
sub-lease, or maybe a collection of options (is it a range of addresses or
an actual subnet? how big
At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
will focus attention on the obvious question ..what is it going to cost me?
Is there any way the
At 01:13 PM 11/22/04 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Fred, while I agree completely with this, we all need to understand that
it has another implication. If the customer is offered a snazzy new IPv6
device, using public address space, that fails to offer plug it in and it
will work, then the
Right. While I didn't want to continue this discussion on the IETF
list, as I understand it this is precisely what prefix delegation was
meant to be able to handle.
Eliot
Fred Baker wrote:
At 12:35 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
One potentially technical hurdle here is the way that
Eric,
I suspent that none of us on this list qualify as the nominal consumer.
I do vehemently agree with your last paragraph. In some sense, you are
saying that NAT is an intrinsic part of the nominal residential
gateway (could be expanded for soho and small/medium business). As
such, what is
At 01:44 PM 11/22/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
will focus attention on the obvious question ..what is it
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually
configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You
run DHCP within the home and it assigns such. That being the case, you
actually don't know or care what the
Peter Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I do vehemently agree with your last paragraph. In some sense, you are
saying that NAT is an intrinsic part of the nominal residential
gateway (could be expanded for soho and small/medium business).
Indeed. I think this is true. Several people on this list have
Eric S. Raymond writes:
For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost
of IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Given this, how could
anyone wonder why NAT is popular?
There's another feature of NAT that is desirable that has not yet been
mentioned, and which at
Eric,
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually
configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You
run DHCP within the home and it assigns such. That being the
since this has gone rather far afield from IPng, I'm changing the subject
line
--On søndag, november 21, 2004 12:41:39 -0600 Stephen Sprunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was originally designed as an add-on to POTS here, and I'm not sure
it's even possible to add ADSL onto an ISDN line. The
Chris Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's another feature of NAT that is desirable that has not yet been
mentioned, and which at least some customers may be cognizant of: the
fact that NAT is a pretty restrictive firewall.
I'm as big a fan of the end-to-end principle as anybody, but until the
Eric,
this is a sine qua non requirement.
With plug, play, testing and document of every appliance but also of every
competing network connection I can grab (wi-fi, ISPs, cable, ISDN,
satellite, etc. ). So when I a move around nothing is changed, and I know
to use the my environment in hotels
Eric - Fred has the model right. The CPE router (actually a gateway with
router/firewall/DHCP/DNS services) uses DHCPv6 PD (prefix delegation; RFC
3633) to obtain a prefix (either a /64 or shorter) and then assigns /64
prefixes to any downstream links. The devices in the home use either
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Indeed. I think this is true. Several people on this list have tried to tell
me that I don't really want the IP address space on my local net to be
decoupled from the server address.
They are wrong. I want to be able to change ISPs by fixing *one* IP
address in *one*
On 11/22/2004 4:04 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
DHCPv6 PD (prefix delegation; RFC 3633) to obtain a prefix
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. So now we just need implementors
to provide it and for service providers to offer it before declaring the
problem as solved.
--
Eric A. Hall
Eric - interoperability of several (~6) independent implementations was
demonstrated at TAHI '03 and Connectathon '03. The consensus among ISPs
seems to be to use PD (although the jury is still out until IPv6 service is
more widely available).
- Ralph
At 04:44 PM 11/22/2004 -0500, Eric A. Hall
Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You wouldn't care about touch points if even a large number were
reliable and secure, and that is the key.
I'm not sure I understand that sentence. What's a touch point?
And what does security have to do with any of this? My issue is with how
much
At 12:10 PM 11/22/04 -0800, Chris Palmer wrote:
There's another feature of NAT that is desirable that has not yet been
mentioned, and which at least some customers may be cognizant of: the
fact that NAT is a pretty restrictive firewall.
would that it were true. In fact, it is pretty easy to
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
...
To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment.
This is a very restricted subset of:
i've lost track of this conversation, but i want to add some raw data.
(2) propagate updates to my DNS servers so lookup-by-name works.
This is important. As long as this isn't true, DHCP is useless for servers.
isc dhcpd and isc bind cooperate in the way you're describing, and as far
as i
Technically true, of course.
However, most SOHO sites look for a zero-order level of protection
against the random worm trying to connect to an open TCP port on the
average windows machine (especially one set up for file/print sharing
on the SOHO network), and NAT does that just fine.
IPv6
At
Richard Shockey wrote:
I think the problem the Internet Engineering community has had is that
we have not taken out to lunch some of our friends in Economic Theory
who would help us understand the IPV6 adoption problem for what it is
an economic not a technical issue.
Yes deployment will
At 2:49 PM -0500 11/22/04, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Actually, I do set up static addresses. I'd use DHCP, but if I did that
I would not be able to refer to the machines on my local net by name.
Until my DHCP client can update my DNS tables with name information
on the fly, I'll keep doing doing it
Joel,
Well, in most Pacific Islands, there is only one operator who is nearly
fully owned by the government, so the words "sole ISP" and "country"
can be interchanged. The countries there are islands, physically and
virtually.
When we try to apply for address space, we are usually told to
Title: RE: Why people by NATs
Hi Tony,
Yourenclosed feature comparison list is a fine list.
However, the sooner the residential gatewayfeature setis expanded to
cover support of tunnelingIPv6 running on top IPv4 as a
bearer, the faster you will see IPv6 deployed. Why build in a
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Peter Ford wrote:
Hi Tony,
Your enclosed feature comparison list is a fine list. However, the sooner
the residential gateway feature set is expanded to cover support of
tunneling IPv6 running on top IPv4 as a bearer, the faster you will see IPv6
deployed. Why
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3943
Title: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Compression Using Lempel-Ziv-Stac (LZS)
Author(s): R. Friend
Status: Informational
Date:
38 matches
Mail list logo
