Noel,
At 02:36 PM 11/30/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
** Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address
** allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be
** refused allocations of IPv6 addresses.
Holy smoke! That's really major.
Huh? This
At 12:53 PM 11/29/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
the only benefit that IPv4 has over IPv6 (relative to routing table
size) is that IPv4 discourages growth of the Internet.
Only? Please.
An obvious benefits of v4 over v6 is that it is deployed. Another benefit
is the operational experience
Keith,
At 10:44 PM 2/14/2001 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
True. However, a company that produces a NAT that is more painful to
Eric,
Odd. Every time I renumbered some site (hq.af.mil and sundry other sites
sharing similar characteristics), there was neither a NAT prior to, nor
subsequent to, the renumbering.
If they are already using NAT, it is most likely they wouldn't need your
services to renumber, no?
Rgds,
-drc
Noel,
At 01:20 AM 2/15/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why do I have to change
street addresses just because I moved?
A very good reason your name is separate from your address.
Good thing you didn't choose telephone numbers in your rant, huh?
In any event, my point (in case you missed it
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.
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,
At 11:52 AM 1/23/2001 +, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
o'dell's GSE draft addressed renumbering perfectly.
And look how far it got.
Rgds,
-drc
| Please, please, nobody ever pick a prefix at random.
For one reason (of several), who's going to delegate you the
reverse DNS (ip6.arpa) space to go with it?
??
The discussion was about non-transit provider (what that is) addresses
that aren't connected to the (IPv6) Internet.
I'm
Bertrand,
And what DNS server software supports IPv6 address records?
See http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/bind9.html (the only server I know
of that supports A6, I'd be very happy to hear of another so we can do
interop testing).
Rgds,
-drc
Daniel,
For all the sites in the world who'd LIKE
to be able to have an upstream to provide IPv6, but for whom such
doesn't exist, and probably won't for a long time, some one or few
organizations should look into buying a block of IPv6 space, setting up
a few routers which can handle lots
For the archives of the historic PIARA discussions, see
http://www.apnic.net/wilma-bin/wilma/piara
(I think the mailing list is still alive)
Rgds,
-drc
"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Noel Chiappa" writes
:
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Heh.
I know someone who wants to offer a class B at seven figures and for class B's
that "sold" for 5 figures. And you say addresses have no value.
Ah, nostalgia. It's so nice to revisit old "discussions"...
Rgds,
-drc
Bill Manning wrote:
Sigh,
Please -NOT- the PIARA again.
Keith,
even the DNS names for major services may not be well maintained.
at one time I did a survey of the reasons for mail bounces
for one of my larger mailing lists.
You appear to be saying that because historically people screwed up
configuring their DNS that it is impossible to rely on
Thomas,
This is not true. IPv6's TLA scheme has as its primary goal placing an
upper bound on the number of routing prefixes that are needed in the
core.
...
Contrast that with today's IPv4 where the number of
prefixes that need to be maintained in the DFZ in order to have global
Keith,
a 92.55% reliability rate is not exactly impressive, at least not in
a favorable sense.
it might be tolerable if a failure of the PTR lookup doesn't cause
the application to fail.
If people's livelihood depends on something, they're more likely to insure it
actually works. Very
Rick,
I hate to add a "me too" but I must. I believe that the RAB minutes would
be very useful if they were published.
Has any other organization interested in publishing an informational RFC
needed to also publish the internal discussions that led to the implementation
of their proprietary
Ed,
the issue is what
is being presented by NSI to be an informational IETF RFC, not whether
we should commend NSI for doing or not doing anything in their own
benefit. This is yet not the Internet Marketing Study Group.
Nor is it the Internet Inquisition ("No one expects the Internet
Brian,
DNS doesn't make a choice. If there are multiple addresses,
it returns all of them. The host makes the choice.
Let me introduce you to today's current crop of DNS-based load balancing
"solutions". For example, from
http://www.resonate.com/products/global_dispatch/faqs.php3:
How does
Charlie,
DNS is supposed to be a way to resolve domain names into IP addresses.
As a hammer is supposed to be a way to pound nails. However, when it is
perceived that all you have is a hammer, it is amazing what begins to look
like nails.
How else would one get an IP(v6) address from a
Steve,
I think the point Charlie was making is that IP addresses are precisely
the kinds of nails that the DNS was designed to hammer.
And I agree.
Are you
claiming that because the DNS has been used to pound other things,
it is no longer any good for hammering (IP address) nails?
Not
Christian,
Increasing our reliance on the DNS is definitely not a good idea.
Hmmm. This would appear to be the exact opposite of what the IETF has done
with IPv6.
Rgds,
-drc
Cary,
Is this something that you think is an inherent flaw in DNS?
Inherent flaw in the DNS: probably not. Inherent flaws in implementations of
DNS (including, of course, ISC's BIND) and things in front of the DNS:
probably. It is far too easy to do the wrong thing.
And if this is true
23 matches
Mail list logo
