Tony Hain wrote:
If a bof were proposed on the topic, would it be turned down as out of scope
and in conflict with the currently stated solution in shim6?
I'm not sure what exact BOF proposal you had in mind, but
the existence of Shim6 WG should not prevent further
discussion. I at least do
Tony Hain wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Scott Leibrand wrote:
..
I agree, especially in the near term. Aggregation is not required
right
now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk
reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think it
is).
On 21-apr-2006, at 15:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If we abolish that myth and look at the problem we are left with
an answer where BGP passing regional aggregates is sufficient.
I'm sorry, I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument how such
aggregates could come to pass in the real
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
The problem with your challenge is the lack of a defined topology. The
reality is that there is no consistency for topology considerations, so
the
ability to construct a routing model is limited at best.
Actually my challenge asked for an assumed
I'm patient, but when you have a heavily loaded VAX-11/780 (I think
this was before the host apple.com was upgraded to a VAX-8650)
doing netnews, where even the highly optimized compress program
beats on the CPU, and a Cray X/MP-48 just sitting there across the
LAN ...
So, I set up a TCP
Hi,
Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that is,
IETF makes standards that people can work with, and RIRs use allocation
policies that somewhat reflect what the protocol designers had in mind.
This is a proper model which should remain this way with a little fix.
Peter Sherbin wrote:
This is a proper model which should remain this way with a little fix. IETF
engineering effort is funded (indirectly) by the employers of the engineers.
RIRs
administrative work is funded through membership and allocation fees, which
essentially equals selling of IP
Kevin Loch wrote:
...
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
Kevin, I realise you may have felt provoked by the tone of
some earlier messages, but I must point out that (a) the shim6
work is
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Scott Leibrand wrote:
..
I agree, especially in the near term. Aggregation is not required
right
now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk
reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think it
is).
I think
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
not in my recollection. It's been awhile, but I recall pathalias being
used to do source routing - given a hostname, to specify a complete
path to that host. (I also recall it sometimes being used to do
rerouting - discarding the
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Number portability, after all, only requires a layer of indirection.
We can certainly engineer that!
And we have. It's called the DNS.
no it's not. DNS sucks for that. it's too slow, too likely to be out
of sync. DNS names are the
From: Terry Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you agree with the thesis that *without* pervasive PI, the future
of NAT (or some other mechanism for providing address autonomy to
organizations) is absolutely guaranteed forever (even with v6)?
The use of NAT to provide local
Original Message
From: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Number portability, after all, only requires a layer of indirection.
We can certainly engineer that!
And we have. It's called the DNS.
no it's not. DNS sucks for that. it's too slow, too likely
On 18-apr-2006, at 13:50, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Now we hear that anything like 8+8 is infeasiable because it's
incompatible
with the installed base (all 17 of them).
18 if the IETF would finally start eating its own dog food...
Let me observe once again that 8+8/GSE is incomplete because it
Keith,
sort of. MPLS with globally-scoped tags, and a database of
[course] (think subnet sized) identifer to locator mappings that is
distributed via BGP. border routers look at the destination host
identifier, find the set of locators that correspond to it, and pick
the best locator
It smells remarkably like pathalias to me ;-)
except that I'm not proposing that border routers do source routing, just that
they map from PI identifiers to PA locators and prepend a header that causes
the payload to be routed to the locator.
Keith
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:42:27AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
It smells remarkably like pathalias to me ;-)
except that I'm not proposing that border routers do source routing,
just that they map from PI identifiers to PA locators and prepend a
header that causes the payload to be routed to
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:42:27AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
It smells remarkably like pathalias to me ;-)
except that I'm not proposing that border routers do source routing,
just that they map from PI identifiers to PA locators and prepend a
header that causes the payload to be
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:46:15 -0400, Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:42:27AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
It smells remarkably like pathalias to me ;-)
except that I'm not proposing that border routers do source routing,
just that they map from PI
On Apr 16, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for
someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity.
Congratulations.
Well, that's too bad. But
On 4/14/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote: 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI.6 voted against.Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
paycheck get to blow up the internet.Where is
On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
paycheck get to blow up the
PROTECTED]; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6
advances in ARIN]
On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1
This message was cross posted to a large number of lists. I would
like to make the root of the discussion clear, without taking an
opinion.
This link is the original message, best I can tell. Hopefully from
there each individual on this message can tell how they came to
receive it.
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:03:22PM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR
policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not
a deployment body.
Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that
Number portability,
after all, only requires a layer of indirection. We can certainly
engineer that!
And we have. It's called the DNS.
no it's not. DNS sucks for that. it's too slow, too likely to be out of sync.
DNS names are the wrong kinds of names for this. the protocol is poorly
Keith Moore wrote:
...
I agree with Christian. we can build indirection into the routing
infrastructure. it's probably the right way to go.
One could argue that we already have. It's called MPLS...
Tony
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Keith Moore wrote:
...
I agree with Christian. we can build indirection into the routing
infrastructure. it's probably the right way to go.
One could argue that we already have. It's called MPLS...
sort of. MPLS with globally-scoped tags, and a database of
coarse (think subnet
Noel Chiappa wrote:
...
it is manageable to deal with porting between providers within a
city,
but not between cities
Metro addressing! All those old classics are making a comeback...
Ideas never die; some are just ahead of their time. ;)
those groups couldn't see the
On 17-apr-2006, at 21:20, Tony Hain wrote:
I have been advocating a
particular geo approach that can work with existing BGP and be
scaled up and
down as far as necessary to contain the routes. Unfortunately to
date, the
IESG has not understood the necessity to have a working group to
From: Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
only requires a layer of indirection. We can certainly engineer that!
Yes, but we aren't. E.g. it would be really wonderful if we had some way of
finding out what range(s) of addresses belonged to XYZ Corporation, so that
the configuration of
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since there's no technical difference between PI and number
portability, I expect approval of PI-space will lead to portability
anyway.
Yes, the current criteria for PI-space are rather limited, but since
there's no particular
Noel Chiappa wrote:
PI is like spam - it looks attractive to the people using it, because it's
free to them. The fact that it costs *other* people money is something
they don't care about - it's not coming out of their pocket.
Where are these free routers and how do I get one?
- Kevin
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
PI is like spam - it looks attractive to the people using it, because it's
free to them. The fact that it costs *other* people money is something
they don't care about - it's not coming out of their pocket.
Noel,
While I might have chosen a different
If I the only choices available are widespread PI and widespread NAT,
then we need to really change the way we approach things. Either of
those is a very bad answer.
Now, at least some of the folks supporting this PI assignment
initiative have indicated that they do not believe it will be
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...
Since this has been coming up from time to time for over a decade,
why not look at it, document the results and be done much faster when
it comes up again and again the following decade, I would think.
That was why I proposed a bof, and will do so again.
Terry/David,
Terry Gray wrote:
*without* pervasive PI, the future of NAT (or some other
mechanism for providing address autonomy to organizations)
is absolutely guaranteed forever (even with v6)?
To me, that seems obvious
Obvious it is to me too. Problem is: there are way too many people in
Kevin Loch wrote:
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
Whatever. This is all quite silly. SHIM6 is still speculative in
nature and for the operational community to attempt to quash it is
On 14-Apr-2006, at 14:01, Kevin Loch wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not saying that these people expected the internet to melt
down by supporting this policy, but that's exactly the problem.
Within the IETF, we've been working long and hard to find a way
to allow for
[very nice cross posting going on here ;) ]
On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 12:10 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[...
large snip about trying to bash shim6 which is not finalized
yet, thus how can you bash it ?
Note: extra sarcasm included in this post. Eat the eggs with salt.
...]
Oh, and one thing I
Joe Abley wrote:
On 14-Apr-2006, at 14:01, Kevin Loch wrote:
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
I presume you're not saying that the operational community has rejected
all possible,
On 16-Apr-2006, at 14:18, Kevin Loch wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
On 14-Apr-2006, at 14:01, Kevin Loch wrote:
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational
community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
I presume you're not saying that the
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Metro addressing! All those old classics are making a comeback...
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/metro-addr-slides-jul95.pdf
Noel, it's not old, only 11 years old ;-)
I found another use for ipv6mh after all: museum.
Tony Hain wrote:
those groups couldn't see
Hello;
On Apr 14, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
Michel sed
breaking news
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the
ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has
reviewed
policy proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
portability could be one outcome.
Given that the point of this PI exercise seems to be to increase the
viability of IPv6, maybe you should go for it, and add number portability
too? That should further increase the viability.
it is manageable to
portability could be one outcome.
Given that the point of this PI exercise seems to be to increase the
viability of IPv6, maybe you should go for it, and add number
portability
too? That should further increase the viability.
The IETF is an engineering organization. Engineers are good
On 15-apr-2006, at 18:54, Christian Huitema wrote:
Clearly, the current set-up based on BGP and default-free tables is
not set to absorb more than a small number of PI prefixes -- maybe
a few
thousands, maybe a few tens of thousands, certainly not a few
hundred of
millions. But who says
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 19:49 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15-apr-2006, at 18:54, Christian Huitema wrote:
[..]
It's really too bad, because we almost have what we need to pull this
whole scalability thing off in IPv6: stateless autoconfig, DHCPv6
prefix delegation, dynamic DNS
The end
sites are demanding autonomy with a stable routing system. That set of
requirements leads to structured allocations and topology constraints. ...it
should be noted that the ones holding the money are the end sites.
Which makes a case for concentrating the effort on a stable routing
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
paycheck get to blow up the internet.
Where is ICANN when you need it? This little
On 04/14/06 at 5:07pm +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote:
60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against.
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
paycheck get to
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing.
Sounds like a rough consensus to me.
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
paycheck get to blow up the internet.
I find this comment extremely offensive. Nobody in that room
would have supported a policy they
On 14-apr-2006, at 18:51, Kevin Loch wrote:
Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own
paycheck get to blow up the internet.
I find this comment extremely offensive. Nobody in that room
would have supported a policy they actually believed would blow up
the Internet.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not saying that these people expected the internet to melt down by
supporting this policy, but that's exactly the problem. Within the
IETF, we've been working long and hard to find a way to allow for
multihoming that we KNOW won't melt the internet, and now
At 19:03 +0200 4/14/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Both the IETF and the RIRs suffer from the problem that the people that
speak up are self-selected. Also, the fact that each RIR comes up with its
own policies but that the result shows up in routing tables world wide makes
no sense.
I
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us
aggregation with provider independence.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling
simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million
enterprise customers and
On 04/14/06 at 11:05am -0700, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with
provider independence.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling
simulation model of a
From: Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nobody in that room would have supported a policy they actually
believed would blow up the Internet.
Who was in the room, BTW? How many of those 60 were from ISP's?
Also, does that group have any commitments from ISP's (particularly the
large
On 04/14/06 at 2:17pm -0400, Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nobody in that room would have supported a policy they actually
believed would blow up the Internet.
Who was in the room, BTW? How many of those 60 were from ISP's?
Noel,
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 14:17 -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nobody in that room would have supported a policy they actually
believed would blow up the Internet.
Who was in the room, BTW? How many of those 60 were from ISP's?
Also, does that
Michel Py wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us
aggregation with provider independence.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling
simulation model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred million
From: Scott Leibrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the desire not to pass a PI for everyone policy that would explode
the routing table.
Interesting that you should mention that, because there's zero technical
differentiation between PI space and portable addresses. So I have to
wonder if
Jason had the chair ask how many folks in the room were in the Default
Free Zone, and 20 people raised their hands. So from that I conclude at
the very least that 14 of those 20 did not oppose the PI proposal.
its a bit harder to say than that - the 2nd question (how many from
default free
At 15:13 -0400 4/14/06, Noel Chiappa wrote:
There's a certain deep irony here, because PI-addresses have been considered
at length in the IETF in at least two different WG's - CIDR-D and Multi-6.
Both rejected them after extensive discussion.
Can you point to documents that give the results
Michel Py wrote:
My $0.02 about geo PI: a strategy change is needed. Instead of
presenting geo PI as the solution that would give PI without
impacting the routing table (this will not fly because there are
too few believers and too many unknowns), present it as the icing
on the cake of a
Michel sed
breaking news
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the
ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed
policy proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and
utilisation requirement and has determined that there is
now is the time to comment if you want to - a lack of comment means
agreement
from ARIN Member Services
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), has reviewed Policy
Proposal
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:53:03 -0400, Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's hardly an engineering decision. The sense was that without PI
space, IPv6 will remain in a state that will not get it deployment
experience.
This is a very important point. Without expressing an opinion on
Noel Chiappa wrote:
the desire not to pass a PI for everyone policy that would explode
the routing table.
Interesting that you should mention that, because there's zero technical
differentiation between PI space and portable addresses. So I have to
wonder if this initiative will
Kevin Loch wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not saying that these people expected the internet to melt down
by supporting this policy, but that's exactly the problem. Within the
IETF, we've been working long and hard to find a way to allow for
multihoming that we KNOW won't
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Masataka Ohta wrote:
There was debate. But, 8+8 was rejected without any discussion or
reasoning.
Could someone tell me where I can read about 8+8?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
71 matches
Mail list logo
