On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Mahadevan Iyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the
> > Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public
> > infrastructure like power systems. What do you think?
>
>
Date:Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:53:25 -0500 (CDT)
From:Tim Salo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency. Refrigerator's don't.
Refrigerators don't care about connectivity at all. They don't care
about anythi
> They have not been overlooked by those who have been
> working on IPv6 address allocation policy.
What's the solution? Hint: No policy of advance address allocation will
help, and neither will any form of address-based routing, no matter how
clever.
Thus spake "Mahadevan Iyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the
> Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public
> infrastructure like power systems. What do you think?
Public power systems are not life-and-death. Anywhere th
At 8:36 AM +0200 8/4/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>I think we'll see IP addressable toasters and washing machines just after we
>all switch from automobiles to hovercars and from telephones to
>Picturephones. According to predictions being made by futurists for the
>past few decades, all of these
At 8:49 AM +0200 8/4/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>Not relevant. IPv6 will be exhausted by overly-generous allocation of
>address space, just like IPv4. I've already explained in the past why this
>must be so. In part, it comes from the subjective impression that any new
>address space is "more
ction of 3Com or
any of it's subsidiaries
***
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/08/2000 05:58:52
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jim Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addre
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:35 PM
To: Mahadevan Iyer
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:26:55 PDT, Mahadevan Iyer said:
> At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the
>
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 01:26:55 PDT, Mahadevan Iyer said:
> At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the
> Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public
> infrastructure like power systems. What do you think?
At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use some
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Mahadevan Iyer writes:
>
> > At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open
> > network like the Internet to control critical matter=
> > of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power
> > systems. Wh
The world connected
Hmm Now I'm thinking Virus's
/Jon/div
-Original Message-
From: Evstiounin, Mikhail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 4:08 PM
To: Steven Cotton; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Toaster is much
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns?= Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > good point... but I do wonder how the border edge
> > router will handle a datagram with
> > TTL approx > 240 sec's
> > ( i.e min time required for msg to pass between earth <=> mars) ?
> > what about jitters, latency ,dropped packet
Dennis Glatting wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Andre-John Mas wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> >
> > Though if the devices already use ethernet, then each device would
> > already have its own MAC address, and the IP address would be DHCP
> > assignable. As stated earlier once firewall/routers/DHCP server comb
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> > The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that
> it
> > should be done.
>
> Definitely - what benefit can I get fr
Mahadevan Iyer writes:
> At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open
> network like the Internet to control critical matter=
> of-life-and-death public infrastructure like power
> systems. What do you think?
I think there are lots of idiots out there preparing to do exactly this.
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Andre-John Mas wrote:
>
>
> Dennis Glatting wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the
> > > ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to loc
"Dawson, Peter D" wrote:
>
> good point... but I do wonder how the border edge
> router will handle a datagram with
> TTL approx > 240 sec's
> ( i.e min time required for msg to pass between earth <=> mars) ?
> what about jitters, latency ,dropped packets, icmpv6 err msg well
> whatever
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mahadevan Iyer wrote:
> At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the
> Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public
> infrastructure like power systems. What do you think?
>
I believe:
* Engineers will build any possible feature i
Dennis Glatting wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the
> > ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock
> > their customers in to particular services. not my idea of
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it
> should be done.
Definitely - what benefit can I get from my toaster having Internet
conectivity when I will be able to use my blender to read mail?
--
steven
At first glance, it seems sheer idiocy to use an open network like the
Internet to control critical matter-of-life-and-death public
infrastructure like power systems. What do you think?
Or do you think, it is possible to build ultra-reliable secure real-time
communication channels in the Interne
Peter Dawson writes:
> v6 address space works out to about 1500 address
> per sq mtr of the earth's surface...
> NOW..how many house fit on 1 sqm ?
Not relevant. IPv6 will be exhausted by overly-generous allocation of
address space, just like IPv4. I've already explained in the past why this
> The IPv6 address blocks allocated by ARIN are much
> much larger, so the price per address for an ISP
> is considerably lower.
And IPv6 will be exhausted just as quickly or more quickly than IPv4 in
consequence.
Doesn't anyone ever learn? The same mistakes are being made over and over.
There'
see www.ipnsig.org
vint
At 09:46 PM 8/3/2000 -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>There is already a lot of work being done on the Interplanetary
>Internet problem. Vint Cerf has lead pioneering work with people at
>JPL on the problem. I don't
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable,
> I think we will see a move towards assigning an Internet
> IP address per household (much like today's street address).
> The household will perform NAT for all devices within
> (one street address can house many people, not just one).
At 05:48 PM 8/3/2000 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>The various proposals to burn IP addresses into devices are naive.
for the record, I was assuming that only a lower order unique end-id
was burned in and that the high order bits would be dynamically assigned
based on connectivity to the global Inter
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:52:25 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> why not consider all the dimentions, ever heard of polyfractal space ?
Fabricating the router connections would be interesting WHat sort of
crimping tool would it take to make a 2.75D connector stay on the cable? ;)
PGP signature
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 22:06:13 BST, Lloyd Wood said:
> in an ideal world, airlines don't _have_ differentiated seat pricing.
Of course, in reality, they split them into coach and tolerable. ;)
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Ana
I had been assuming that the aggregation would take place
at the "prefix" level of IPv6 addresses and that the unique
component would be in some lower order part of the 128 bit space.
If I have a bad model of that, I'd appreciate offline explanation.
thanks
vint
At 04:19 PM 8/3/2000 -0400, [EM
August 03, 2000 3:06 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
>
> good point... but I do wonder how the border edge
> router will handle a datagram with
> TTL approx > 240 sec's
> ( i.e min time required for
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
[snip]
> burning IP addresses into devices is a good way to give vendors the
> ability to control those devices, monitor their usage, and to lock
> their customers in to particular services. not my idea of a desirable
> state.
>
It might also b
> Geeks like us care about end-to-end transparency. Refrigerator's don't.
NATs cause a lot more problems than the loss of transparency.
see http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html
> Most people are going to buy products based on the functions they
> perform (utility), not on their arc
son, Peter D" , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(Jim Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com)
Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Well, there are 8 computers in my house, and I don't count future IP enabled
appliances. At my work place (building take probably about 0.7 hectares or
less and this
oiding NAT one of the goal of IPv6? I recall a pretty bigdiscussion here some time ago about NAT and IPv6. > -Original Message-> From: Rakers, Jason [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM> To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subje
The various proposals to burn IP addresses into devices are naive.
IP addresses identify points in the network topology. Hence they
need to be assigned according to topology. If you try to assign
IP addresses in some other fashion, you immediately need something
else to replace the IP address
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:57:49 EDT, "Book, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to
> manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization
> attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from
were on that elevator? :-)
-Original Message-
From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:51 AM
To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One o
At 12:57 PM -0400 8/3/00, Book, Robert wrote:
>Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to
>manufacturers would be much easier to support than an organization
>attempting to process individual email requests, or CGI scripted forms from
Good grief! This is the worst
SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 1:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
> "Rakers, Jason" wrote:
> >
> > Better question: How many households are there in the world on the
> >
"Book, Robert" wrote:
> Vinton's idea has much merit. A scheme to allocate blocks of addresses to
> manufacturers would be much easier to support
Mmm...that's already there, isn't it? The low-order 64 bits he's talking about
are things like Ethernet addresses, for use in IPv6 autoconfig. (We ca
ssage-
->From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:50 PM
->To: Dawson, Peter D
->Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
->Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
->
->
->
->peter,
->
->who said all the addresses were going to
> From: "Dawson, Peter D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:36:57 -
>
> ->The household will perform NAT for all devices
> ->within (one street address can house many people, no
l Message-
> ->From: Parkinson, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> ->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:23 AM
> ->To: 'Rakers, Jason'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ->Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
> ->
> ->
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today's street address).
make that an address *block* per household.
> The household will perform NAT for all devices
> within (one street
hmm... in Manahattan that may be more than one, in Silk Hope, North Carolina
it is less than one
-Original Message-
From: Dawson, Peter D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
v6
Original Message-
> From: Dawson, Peter D [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 11:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
> v6 address space works out to about 1500 address
> per sq mtr of the
Vint,
the ASO members don't support ICANN on a per block basis, in fact ICANN's
Task Force on Funding (TFF) observed that the IP Address Registries
operate on a non-profit business model from member fees and should foot
10% of ICANN's budget. (see
http://www.icann.org/tff/final-report-draft-30o
At 05:32 03/08/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote:
>I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
>my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee
>for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us."
if the USD 2500/year fee Scott mentioned in the pl
: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 7:51 AM
To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons
for fees, of course, is that the Address
gt; -Original Message-
>>> From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM
>>> To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>>>
>&g
y subsidury.
**
Andre-John Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/08/2000 15:41:52
Sent by: Andre-John Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rakers, Jason"
cc: "'Dennis Glatting'" ,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Stephenson-
"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
>
> Better question: How many households are there in the world on the
> Internet?
Wrong question. The correct question is how many should we plan for.
Right now 12 billion people seems to be a reasoanble estimate -
unthinkable for IPv4, but easily covered by IPv6.
Br
ECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:51 AM
To: Dennis Glatting; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons
for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility
to su
son'; 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
->Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
->
->
->Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many
->houses are there
->in the world!
->
->-Original Message-
->From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[
Rakers, Jason wrote:
<> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
<> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
<> today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices
<> within (one street address can house many
"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices
> within (one street address can house many
Dennis,
>I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
>my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee
>for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee
>but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, th
"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices
> within (one street address can house ma
No, what will happen is one IPv6 prefix per household/car/whatever,
and therefore no reason for NAT.
Brian
"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons
for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility
to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating
costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN)
From: Dennis Glatting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 05:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
> I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary
> and arrived at two philosophical questions.
>
> I
"Rakers, Jason" wrote:
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today's street address). The household will perform NAT for all devices
> within (one street address can house many
->-Original Message-
->From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:41 AM
->To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
->Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
->
->
The household will perform NAT f
03, 2000 2:41 PM
> To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will
> see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much lik
Err I think that would take some thinking about ? How many houses are there
in the world!
-Original Message-
From: Rakers, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:41 PM
To: 'Dennis Glatting'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
> When household appliances begin becoming IP addressable, I think we will
> see
> a move towards assigning an Internet IP address per household (much like
> today's street address). The household wil
"Dawson, Peter D" wrote:
>
> ->-Original Message-
> ->From: Dennis Glatting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> ->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM
> ->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ->Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
> ->
&g
t one).
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Glatting [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
>
>
> I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last ni
->-Original Message-
->From: Dennis Glatting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
->Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:32 AM
->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
->Subject: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
->
->
->Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the
I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary
and arrived at two philosophical questions.
I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee
for my /27 because "ARIN is no
70 matches
Mail list logo
