Scott,
If IPv8 meets all of the criteria of an IETF protocol it should be
labeled as an IETF protocol. I don't remember the verb blessed being
operational in the IETF, perhaps I should reread the RFCs for it.
The point is, instead of people peering into the future in a star
chamber, one can
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
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
Title: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Noel,
You are sorely under-representing the
IETF's and your own efforts wrt NATs. I think of your
taxonomic study of NATs much in the same vein as Carl Linnaeus's "Systema
Naturae".
In fact, given the intellectual
contributions by the think
Title: RE: How the IPnG effort was started
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.
While you are at it, you might ask if they
Noel,
I especially like the proof by emphaticus assertionus: It's pretty
clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal -
which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4.
Reminds me of the discussion between two dinosaurs back in the Jurassic:
well, it is now apparent we are not going
Jeff,
In terms of being inside the ISP space, I would include all of those
people who build software and hardware for ISPs such as router, switch,
firewall, etc..
My taxonomy intended to differentiate between app/host vendors and
IP-transport/router-switch vendors.
Apologies to all in my broad
Title: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Noel,
In the interest of
completeness I would note that at the time the size of the global Internet
routing table was also a very high concern and core to at least one session at
each IETF meeting at the time. Pre-cidr we were at risk of running
I don't think there was any lack of capability for traction for the earlier proposals,
there just wasn't a surface to grip against. The news (good or bad depending on your
biases) is that the telcos have some larger roles in the Internet now a days.
When it was decided to open up TLDs,
In the spirit of well, if highlighting a difference of opinion is the first step
toward
resolving it, then we're on our way.:
Can we can ask Amazon to include RFCs in their product listings, and then let
reviewers, consumers, proponents and objectors to use product rating mechanisms to
help
Title: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Noel,
You are getting too cerebral. We can
look at the marketing info on the box of a NAT product to see what people think
they are getting:
1) Instant Internet Sharing for cable and
DSL
2)
Title: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6)
If you think of IPv6 as an end to end
technology that can gracefully ride on top of the global IPv4 ISP provided
infrastructure, you don't have to have the "Internet Infrastructure" transition
to IPv6
Keith,
In a just world, people freely purchase the things they want and believe
solves a real world problem for them.
The Internet has grown at an incredible rate and I suspect in large part
due to NATs. I wonder if the Internet would sue the NAT vendors, or
thank them for establishing a
Ahh, it doesn't have to damage routing transparency. If we were to use
a signaling protocol that is carefully crafted to preserve routing
transparency (e.g. RSVP) then we can avoid this issue.
The upnp guys are not really thinking of damaging routing transparency.
The protocols explicit probe
The Usenix annual convention is about the same cost. I suspect the
O'Reilly Open Source Convention is more.
Corporations already pay for the ietf meetings. Check out the
registration list. Corporations are also members and contributors to
ISOC.
Let's assume we took the meeting prices down
Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:08 AM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: Andrew McGregor; Vivek Gupta; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue
Peter Ford wrote:
If one really believes in end to end architectures, then one probably
would want
-Original Message-
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:18 PM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue
Ahh, it doesn't have to damage routing transparency. If we were to
use
a signaling protocol that is carefully
I would love to see the complete solution to signaling all the potential
blocking intermediate hops in the network that specific traffic should
pass.
Regards, peter
A starting point: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/multicast_53.html
As important is participation in the mailing lists, docs, etc.
Cheers, peterf
-Original Message-
From: Thor Harald Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:45 PM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: Paul
If one really believes in end to end architectures, then one probably
would want generalized protocols for supporting hosts telling the
network what to do wrt opening holes at NATs/Firewalls for inbound
traffic. Doing this form of traversal mapping on a protocol by protocol
basis (e.g. H.323
)
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:25 PM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: Geoff Huston; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: utility of dynamic DNS
I would offer that we select the thing that looks the most
persistent
to be the persistent identity
I would offer that we select the thing that looks the most persistent
to be the persistent identity. If the choices are: DNS name vs IP
address, I think most people would recognize that the DNS name is the
persistent identity. And it is probably the one most people would want
to use,
Given that a key technology in the v4 to v6 transition appears to be
tunneling, perhaps the ietf should consider the merits of ALL Internet
traffic between peers being tunneled in IP. That way users can get IP
addresses from ISPs for their tunnels, and they could get IP addresses
from their
the locator MUST change with a change in location.
It must change: eventually. For short duration changes you have
Mobile IP. For changes that have longer time horizon you have host
renumbering, which by the design of v6 is now fairly trivial. Seems
like this base might be adequately
I disagree with Keith on some basic assumptions. IPv6 is not a software
upgrade in its' dominant mode. IPv6 was done with the belief that the
raw number of systems will grow huge enough that 2**32 is not enough.
There was this CIDR thing created to solve this other problem.
In terms of raw
Title: RE: Blast from the past
Ah, dual stacks, a time tested transition strategy. But there was some Application Layer Gateway cruft (ALG) although not at the level of sophistication and beauty of a NAT ...
From RFC 801:
Because all hosts can not be converted to TCP simultaneously, and
26 matches
Mail list logo
