[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 21.11.04 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
packet-switch networks. The internet (small i) is not even defined in the
French law where the word is broadly used and understood as the generic
support of the on-line public communications and the digital
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 21.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ISTR that the local competition (the one who's laying down cables like
crazy, pretty much
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:17AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But this has also happened lately; not everybody is so short-sighted:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp
Since you cite Nokia, it's interesting that on the Communicator 9500 you
can run a regular voice
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:46:23 +1200, Franck Martin said:
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.
troll mode=on
While
At 12:07 PM 11/21/2004, Peter Ford wrote:
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C4CFEC.A4503CD1
Noel,
You are sorely under-representing the IETF's
and your own efforts wrt NATs. I think of your
taxonomic study of NATs
to go now.
thanks
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Peter Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 November 2004 07:30
To: Christian de Larrinaga; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: How the IPnG effort was started
Run a market survey and you will find out why people buy these NAT devices
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 20.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
I know B-ISDN types said the same
Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN.
Another group of people who thought that because a major standards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a.us:
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always
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
Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ISTR that the local competition (the one who's laying down cables like
crazy, pretty much every time a street is dug up)
That's also a major difference; our local competition
Peter Ford wrote 21 November 2004 17:08
To: Noel Chiappa; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People seem to forget that people buy NATs for IP address sharing and
firewalling.They don't seem to get it that there are very few people
who would ever buy a NAT because of IPv4 address limitations.
cdel This is
On 11/21/2004 2:48 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
cdel This is difficult to confirm (or deny) as current research into
why users buy NAT's is not clear
When you say buy you are adding another layer here. Most small devices
come with NAT technology built-in, so there are lots of reasons why
At 21:31 21/11/2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
My feeling is that there has to be a group effort to change this, and it
needs across-the-board cooperation. VCs need to be shown that
bidirectional reachability is in their ultimate interest, in that it opens
the door for new technologies and products.
Folks,
I'd like to publicly apologize to Joe Abley for venting my
frustration with other people on him. Bad enough that I did it, but I
compounded the damage by doing it in a public forum. It was wrong and
I am sorry.
--jon
___
Ietf mailing list
Larrinaga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peter Ford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun Nov 21 18:36:50 2004
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
At 21:31 21/11/2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
My feeling is that there has to be a group effort
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
Title: Converted from Rich Text
One question. Governments don't assign street adresses at birth, why would they assign IP addresses? IP addresses are addresses, not Internet Identifiers.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's
really out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
I know B-ISDN types said
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the
network that's really out there, not the network some
of us wish were there.
grenville armitage wrote:
I imagine any number of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) wrote on 16.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look on your
face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd rather make
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) wrote on 18.11.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years, the majority
of services that anybody will want to access will be v4+v6 reachable, and
it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then nonat/v6
, manufacturers, operators, governments, end-users,
applications specifiers, in 6000 different languages, millions of different
local, coporate, community, familly, trade, cultural authorities, etc.).
jfc
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort
Dear Stephen,
there are two things necessary first to accept:
- that what we name names and addresses are two of the three main ways
to identify objects. The way linked to the object, the way attached to the
system, the way related to the users. And because this analysis is not
worded clearly
Thus spake Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) wrote on 16.11.04 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:
I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^
Whereas I have used ISDN for over a decade now, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-20, at 05.13, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
This does not mean that you are bound to a single number, the same you
are not bound to a single mobile. Let not think the users should do
it the way I think, but I am to permit the users to do
Thus spake JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apart from a general analysis confusion between what is a name and what
is an address (which may concern users as well as objects), and an
obvious US nexus of the IETF analysed in RFC 3774, which too often leads
the debate to be based on US
ISDN which 10 years ago was supposed to be the digital miracle that
would save us from the analog crap and take over the world
Kai Henningsen wrote:
... well, over here that is pretty much exactly what happened ...
Maybe traveling outside of your country would give you a better idea of
the
let me apologize in advance. it's saturday here and i'm behaving offtopicly.
One question. Governments don't assign street adresses at birth, why
would they assign IP addresses? IP addresses are addresses, not Internet
Identifiers.
well, here in the land of the PATRIOT act, there's been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) quotes me as saying:
therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years, the majority
of services that anybody will want to access will be v4+v6 reachable,
and it will be realistic to consider provisioning first nat/v6 and then
nonat/v6 endhosts.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
I know B-ISDN types said the same
Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN.
Another group of people who thought that because a major standards
organization wrote specs, and a whole bunch of manufacturers poured a
ton of money
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process),
if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour look
on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too, but I'd
rather make lemonade.
Kai Henningsen wrote:
Everytime someone comes up and says but just look at how ISDN
failed, I go Huh?! That's a strange way of spelling was
wildly successful!
Just because *you* still use stone-age technology ...
Talking about stone-age technology:
- My stone-age phone does not ring busy
On 23:19 20/11/2004, Michel Py said:
What's ridiculous is you. Tell me, mister I-know-it-all-for-the-entire
world, how does it cost to get 3mbit always-on service with a static IP
over ISDN lines? Oh, I see. It's not available and you have to bond
_two_ E1s to get this much bandwidth. Right on.
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
Is your IP address related in a way to your telephone
number (what the ART (French FCC) questionnaire would
imply as something to consider)?
No. The IP address is assigned from my ISP, the phone number by my phone
company. I could choose another ISP if I wanted, my
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Hi Paul,
As you are aware, just because it is possible doesn't make it a good idea.
John
--- Original message ---
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: "Paul Vixie" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I apologize in advance for feeding this thread
ditto
IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of PCs in homes and cell
phones. I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers in the
United States went to IPv4 instead of IPv6, but they did. I can say I
was
Dear Robert,
if only Cugnot's team had promoted cars As Harald put it wisely first,
the organization and promotion is not upto IETF but to sales, Govs,
operators, users, etc... IETF and ICANN are actually blocking IPv6 as it is
widely perceived for what it still is: a non-operational (if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jon == Jon Allen Boone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different.
We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth
month, or something :-)
Jon And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think
]
Fecha: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:57:40 +0100
Para: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa)
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
Dear Robert,
if only Cugnot's team had promoted cars As Harald put it wisely first,
the organization
On Nov 18, 2004, at 21:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
Jon And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully
Jon be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?
a) from their ISP. IPv6 contains no provider-independant addressing
at this point.
Well, clearly,
On 19 Nov 2004, at 09:25, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 21:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
Jon And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully
Jon be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?
a) from their ISP. IPv6 contains no provider-independant
Many folks responding to this thread don't seem to be following the
arguments very closely.
Let me summarize:
1. Everyone agrees that the current situation is untenable.
I can't think of anyone who said it'll last forever.
2. Some people think we've already run out of address space.
3. Some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-18, at 10.26, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
This is for example what the French FCC is investigating in public
questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number
users will get at birth or creation (with additional ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-18, at 19.30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are
below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a
Thus spake Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| which is that a large part of the Internet is going
| to continue to be IPv4-only.
It simply cannot be. Either it dies (or atrophies, which is
essentially the same thing), or IPv4 is replaced by something.
It is possible that hosts with existing IPv4
On 19 Nov 2004, at 15:06, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
2. Someone suggested the you simply use a different provider for IPv6
than IPv4.
Presumably, in this scenario, you get your address space from this
new provider, then establish a 6to4 tunnel to them.
No; if you use 6to4, you construct your own
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:10:33 +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general
knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me
wrong on that already.
On Nov 19, 2004, at 16:23, Joe Abley wrote:
I mean, no one's seriously suggesting an organization throw real
money down on yet another circuit to yet another provider just to get
IPv6 connectivity for particular reason, right?
Tunnels don't cost real money. They cost pretend money.
It seems
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I predict things will continue roughly as they are now, and
when the IPv4 space is approaching true exhaustion the prices
of PI and PA space will rise so much that it will exceed the
cost of converting to IPv6. Then IPv6 will take off, and not
before.
I agree, and will
On 19 Nov 2004, at 20:16, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
On Nov 19, 2004, at 16:23, Joe Abley wrote:
I mean, no one's seriously suggesting an organization throw real
money down on yet another circuit to yet another provider just to
get IPv6 connectivity for particular reason, right?
Tunnels don't cost
On 19:10 19/11/2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general
knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven me
wrong on that already.
I am not sure I
Thus spake JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19:10 19/11/2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
I have long thought that the knowledge of having long (life-long)
persistent, well-spread unique personal identifiers are bad was general
knowledge. Then again, I guess the US biometric stuff has proven
: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: "Spencer Dawkins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time: 11/18/2004 11:10 pm
I apologize in advance for feeding this thread, but the conversation seems to be diverging from what I thought we had actually been previously...
IIRC, we've semi-recentl
Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a newbox was
to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic.
But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic.
At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
Let's assume ... that a large part of
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address
space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think
great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a
On Nov 18 2004, at 10:26 Uhr, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
if there is no hassle like [...] paying for this and that
I'm a bit afraid there are players in this game that won't let us
completely eliminate that hassle.
Obviously, a situation where a /48 can only be obtained at business
rates leads
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Wrote [18 November 2004 18:08]
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring
v6 address
space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is
what we
From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the we don't need to change from v4, ever attitude is simply
absurd.
Ahem. Let's go to the tape:
if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour
look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too,
Date:Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to
| adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice
|
On 11/17/2004 9:02 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else. Usually
given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the
relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses
or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any
more, and precious little incentive to do nonat/v4.
*I* can get v6 connectivity easily
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else.
i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than
all of ipv4. geoff
On 11/18/2004 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger
than all of ipv4.
Me too, but the sum total of these (both now and immediately foreseeable)
is very few. I mean, I can site the corner cases too, but what does that
have to do with
Paul Vixie wrote:
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else.
i am directly aware of latent address
Franck,
You cannot get allocations for the SOPAC countries?
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Franck Martin wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has
on your phones? I think not.
Regards, peterf
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: Jon
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Harold,
Numbers are for losers and technologists.
Except that numbers seem to cross a number of languages better than, say, 7-bit ASCII ... YMMV.
John
___Ietf mailing list[EMAIL
At 19:08 18/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address
space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think
great. This is
Sorry. I made a mistake, it was 313 months ago that I started using names
made of a root, customer and host part. Robert Tréhin would know better (he
was the one with Joe Rinde to introduce root names - or TLDs). Again if
that is what you refer to. So old.
249 months ago is roughly when I
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How the IPnG effort was started
From: Jon Allen Boone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted
within a decade of it's
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
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are
below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of
less than 100,000 and when the IPv6
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries
are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries
are below
On 18 Nov 2004, at 21:05, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be
deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?
End sites get addresses from ISPs, or use 6to4, or get direct
assignments from RIRs if they qualify as operators of critical
I apologize in advance for feeding this thread, but the conversation
seems to be diverging from what I thought we had actually been
previously...
IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of PCs in homes and
cell phones. I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers
in the
Michel,
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:
I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part
of the Internet is going to continue to be IPv4-only. So, what's the
functional
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 06:55 -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Grawl back ;)
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large part
of the
Michel Py wrote:
I think you missed the point. As of today, IPv6 is in the same situation
ISDN has always been:
I Still Don't Need.
^ ^ ^ ^
Comparisons to past successes or failures are fun, but
not always good indications of future. There are several
reasons behind why something takes or
--On 17. november 2004 06:55 -0500 Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might explain that to the people who say they need IPv6.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's assume what many people now seem to concede, which is that a large
part of the Internet
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The difference has been significant on my end. The advantage of end-to-end
connectivity to/from hosts previously only behind a NAT is remarkable. So
is ALL THE ADDRESS SPACE that I now have available, without extra charges
from the local
Jon Allen Boone wrote:
...
Where is the incentive to move to IPv6 going to come from?All of
the Mac OS X and Linux machines I have at home support it. The core
infrastructure of the Internet has the ability to support it. But why
should we go to the trouble of enabling it? Where's the
Brian,
Thanks for you kind note.
On Nov 16, 2004, at 05:59, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
but unfortunately the work-around (ambiguous addresses and NATs) really
only works for a limited subset of applications, apparently including
those you use at home.
yeah, not even everything I'd like to do at
From: Jon Allen Boone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my experience, if a technology hasn't been readily adopted
within a decade of it's creation, it's not going to be. It appears
that time is rapidly approaching for IPv6.
Ah, you need to adjust your clock, or calendar, or whatever. SIP
Noel Chiappa wrote:
[..]
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types said much the
same thing to the emerging packet-switching fanatics 30+ years
At 18:17 16/11/2004, Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's really
out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
To put it another way (and mangle a well-known phrase in the process), if
life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with
From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the network that's
really out there, not the network some of us wish were there.
I know B-ISDN types said the same
Funny thing you should mention B-ISDN.
Another group of people who
Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF needs to seriously face the reality of the
network that's really out there, not the network some
of us wish were there.
grenville armitage wrote:
I imagine any number of circuit-switching Telco-types
said much the same thing to the emerging packet-switching
On Nov 08, 2004, at 13:57, Peter Ford wrote:
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.
I'd like to confirm this. When I first
at 17:17 08/11/2004, Aaron Falk wrote:
I'd like to suggest that this thread move to the internet-history
list.
(For those unfamiliar with this list, information is available at
http://www.postel.org/internet-history.htm)
Dear Aaron,
The work you do at www.postel.org is not only great to pay a
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
So I think my orginal messages (that IPv6 exists because of a
previous
round
of concern about IPv4 address exhaustion, which was used by the
proponents
of
yet another protocol that was going to replace IPv4 to push for
their
protocol's adoption) was right on target.
That is not quite what
From: Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a silly thing to be wasting time on (it's water long under the
bridge now - I was just struck by the power of the irony, and mentioned
it simply because of that), but:
IPv6 exists because of a previous round of concern about IPv4
I'd like to suggest that this thread move to the internet-history
list.
(For those unfamiliar with this list, information is available at
http://www.postel.org/internet-history.htm)
--aaron
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday, November 07, 2004 12:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote
To: Noel Chiappa; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv4 consumption statistics and extrapolations
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:00:09 -0500 (EST), Noel Chiappa wrote:
*IPv6 only exists because of a previous round of
From: Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The issue of IP address exhaustion had already been debated on several
occasions.
...
The proposal in 1992 to base an IPng on CLNP was pretty much a
continuation of these discussions, and it did indeed come in quite
99 matches
Mail list logo
