Folks -
There is an objection by Dean Anderson to the accuracy of
statements posted to the IETF list by Stephen Sprunk on
October 3 regarding ARIN's obligations to legacy IP address
holders.
While ARIN hasn't obtained a formal legal opinion on ARIN's
obligations to legacy IP assignmen
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The unanswered question is: are all these tricks going to be
>> enough to keep operating IPv4. Nobody knows, but almost
>> everyone who already has a v4 address can wait.
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Well, if in the forseeable future (3 years is a bit short,
> though) 50%
On 6-okt-2007, at 7:00, Michel Py wrote:
Think about the following: even if in 3 years 50% of hosts were
IPv6-only capable, it would not diminish the need for IPv4. All the
double-NAT tricks, unused address reclaim, config cleanup etc are
going
to happen now no matter what. I'm not saying it'
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Nothing is going to happen for months.
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Not so sure. The big ISPs that work in blocks of a million or
> so addresses will be the first ones to see their requests turned
> down because addresses are out of stock. Presumably, they'll need
> those
> On 5-okt-2007, at 6:38, Michel Py wrote:
>
> > Nothing is going to happen the day the last v4 block is allocated.
> > Nothing is going to happen for days. Nothing is going to happen for
> > weeks.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Nothing is going to happen for months.
>
> Not so sure. The big ISPs that work
On 5-okt-2007, at 6:38, Michel Py wrote:
Nothing is going to happen the day the last v4 block is allocated.
Nothing is going to happen for days. Nothing is going to happen for
weeks.
Sure.
Nothing is going to happen for months.
Not so sure. The big ISPs that work in blocks of a million or
>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> Each time I see one of these "days remaining before
>>> Armageddon" counters, I can't help but remember what
>>> happened on January 1, 2000: nothing.
>> Keith Moore wrote:
>> yes, but that's because people heeded the warnings, and prepared. if
>> the same thing happens wr
going to be a problem will result in a
solution.
We have to think like marketting people.
> -Original Message-
> From: Artur Hecker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:20 PM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
> Hi
; From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:50 PM
> To: Michel Py
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
>
> >
> http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ipv420
> > .h
> > t
>>> Each time I see one of these "days remaining before Armaggedon"
>>> counters, I can't help but remember what happened on January 1, 2000:
>>> nothing.
>> yes, but that's because people heeded the warnings, and prepared. if
>> the same thing happens wrt IPv4 exhaustion, that will be fabulous.
Hi
On 4 Oct 2007, at 19:50, Keith Moore wrote:
http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
ipv420.h
tml
Each time I see one of these "days remaining before Armaggedon"
counters, I can't help but remember what happened on January 1, 2000:
nothing.
yes, but that's beca
> http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ipv420.h
> tml
>
> Each time I see one of these "days remaining before Armaggedon"
> counters, I can't help but remember what happened on January 1, 2000:
> nothing.
>
yes, but that's because people heeded the warnings, and prepa
> Ruri Hiromi wrote:
>
http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ipv420.h
tml
Each time I see one of these "days remaining before Armaggedon"
counters, I can't help but remember what happened on January 1, 2000:
nothing.
Michel.
John,
Which would those be?
Thanks,
-drc
On Oct 3, 2007, at 6:00 AM, John Day wrote:
If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks
that should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the
public Internet address space.
__
Thus spake "John Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks
that should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the
public Internet address space.
AFAIK, IANA does not have any reclamation procedures, nor have any every
been assumed to e
> On Oct 3, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Ruri Hiromi wrote:
> > http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
> > ipv420.html
>
> well, i could imagine what its good for , but an english version
> would be appreciated ;)
the widget itself is bilingual (english/japanese).
ito
grow in the
developing regions of the globe.
Ray
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Ray Plzak
Cc: Tim Chown; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Ray,
I don't think it's quit
It actually IS English, try installing, it localizes.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
> O
dedicate to ostriches...
http://www.apple.com/en/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
ipv420.html
On 2007/10/02, at 22:32, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Ray Plzak wrote:
The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
her
courtesy of google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fjp%2Fdownloads%2Fdashboard%2Fnetworking_security%2Fipv420.html+&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marc Manthey
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:55:40PM +0900,
Ruri Hiromi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 64 lines which said:
>http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/ipv420.html
^^
Many webmasters still have not read RFC 4646 :-(
> let m
On Oct 3, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Ruri Hiromi wrote:
http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
ipv420.html
hi Ruri ,
well, i could imagine what its good for , but an english version
would be appreciated ;)
cheers
Marc
--
Marc Manthey -
LET - research + deployment
D-
correction,
http://www.apple.com/jp/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
ipv420.html
let me know what do you think about it :-)
Regards,
On 2007/10/03, at 11:24, Ruri Hiromi wrote:
dedicate to ostriches...
http://www.apple.com/en/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
ipv420.html
Cc: Tim Chown; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
> Ray,
>
> I don't think it's quite fair to refer to ostriches
> when ARIN is already on record:
> http://www.arin.net/v6/v6-resolution.html
>
> Also, for those who like to see things in real ti
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
> herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting
> a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially
> when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT.
..or espec
dedicate to ostriches...
http://www.apple.com/en/downloads/dashboard/networking_security/
ipv420.html
On 2007/10/02, at 22:32, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Ray Plzak wrote:
The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
her
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Ray Plzak wrote:
The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
herring.
that has to rank a
t: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Ray Plzak wrote:
> > > The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
> herring
should have been "is"
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:06 AM
> To: Ray Plzak
> Cc: philemon; Hannes Tschofenig; Stephen Sprunk; ietf@ietf.org; Paul
> Hoffman
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Keith Moore wrote:
Ray Plzak wrote:
The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red
herring.
that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever
been
made on the ietf list.
Yellow herring?
There are five RIRs that serve different
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> > The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring.
> that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been
> made on the ietf list.
More of an ostrich than a herring?
.=
Ray Plzak wrote:
> The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring.
that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been
made on the ietf list.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/
age-
> From: philemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore
> Cc: Stephen Sprunk; ietf@ietf.org; Paul Hoffman
> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> Just an input about the NAT issue
nds'.
Thanks
Philemon
- Original Message -
From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; "Paul Hoffman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >There are essentially three classes of network actor:
> client, server and peer. In any given interaction there is
> always an initiator and a responder. In most cases these
> correspond to the client and the server. In a peer-to-peer
> applicati
>
>There are essentially three classes of network actor: client, server and peer.
>In any given interaction there is always an initiator and a responder. In most
>cases these correspond to the client and the server. In a peer-to-peer
>application a given machine may be either an initiator or a r
12:02 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes Tschofenig; Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6
> transition
>
> >So terminating the application session at layer 7 and then
> originating a fre
On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Another problem is the lack of naming and lookup facilities. DNS
SRV records are probably going to be as good as it gets. VoIP
protocols and others that make use of embedded addresses actually
do have an advantage here, because they're ab
>So terminating the application session at layer 7 and then originating a fresh
>one at the point where the numbering scheme changes appears to me to be a
>simple and principled approach.
>
There are two ways I can read this, and I suspect I've got them both wrong. The
first is the "flag day" m
On 7/16/07 10:43 AM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Widespread deployment of ALG's as mediators means you have to upgrade
> the network to support new applications. or applications are built on
> top of hostile tunnels over your alg infrastructure (sound familiar?).
> While some enterp
Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/16/07 6:29 AM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to those that
>> we
>> used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
>
> Maybe, but there are differences that make it harder. Ch
On Mon Jul 16 11:29:54 2007, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to
those that we used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
The only difference is that we have both sides of the gateway
running IP albeit with different numberin
On 7/16/07 6:29 AM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to those that we
> used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
Maybe, but there are differences that make it harder. Chief
among these is that there wer
On 7/16/07 4:13 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe by a lack of simplicity?
Midcom and SIMCO are very simple. I think that there are a few problems,
which taken in aggregate make NAT "control" a hard sell. One is that
in even modestly complex networks either the applicati
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 01:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
16, 2007 01:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
assumptions. If you make specific
Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
assumptions. If you make specific assumptions then the solution is much
simpler.
There is a recent document that aims to compare some of the NAT /
firewall protocol proposals:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
On 2007-07-14 00:07, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
services from them.
We've actually got several of
On Jul 13, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I think we need to look beyond whether NAT is evil (or not) and
whether NATPT is the solution (or not) and look to see how we might
manage a transition to IPv6 in a way that is not predicated on
holding ISP customers hostage.
Peo
Fact: There are NATs and stateful packet filtering firewalls that cause
problems for some applications.
It is quite likely that these devices will not go away.
Phillip also seems to have this view. I replied to him with regard to
the conclusion he draw. He seems to think that the right way to
OTECTED]>, 'Stephen Sprunk'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Keith Moore' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Jun-ichiro itojun
Hagino' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: 'Paul Hoffman' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Asunto: RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
There are two funda
ly thing we can do now is stand back and get ready to
roast marshmallows on the fire of the media driven panic when the pool runs
dry.
Tony
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Stephen Sprunk; Keith Moore; Jun-ichiro itojun H
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
> perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
> services from them.
We've actually got several of them, starting with SOCKS (which
could
> ...and the only problem I have with the above is that the
> word MOST can be misleading. it's not as if most of the
> problems with NATs would go away if only all NATs were to
> suddenly support UPnP extensions to allow
> NAT traversal. that would certainly help, but significant
> brain-d
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I don't think the IETF creates protocols that fail when used through a
> NAT when it's just as easy to make the protocol work though the NAT as
> is the case with FTP.
yes, but it's not "just as easy" to make FTP work through the NAT...at
least, not without losing the
On 13-jul-2007, at 22:11, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future
applications. Compare this with the security aspects that are taken
care of much more than before when developing new applications NAT
traversal is just another thing to think about as
>> there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
>>
>> one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
>> widespread use. there are lots of applications that are used by limited
>> communities that are nevertheless important.
>
> Namely?
that's a silly question. you wouldn't
Hi Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works with
an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
widespread
Hi Phillip,
~Snip~
Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT.
I agree. I am playing games for a really long time and I rarely had ever
problems with NATs.
Obviously these companies don't shy away from solution that would be
classified as "architectural not nice".
Without knowing th
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Future applications are the easiest to deal with.
>
> If we have a proper encapsulation of the network layer the application
> will run fine on either an IPv6 or an IPv4/NAT network or a
> transitional IPv6 plus NAT pool of IPv4 addresses. The only thing that
> the
: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Stephen Sprunk; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; Paul Hoffman; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
> Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works with
> an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
>
there are a
> Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works with
> an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
>
there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
widespread use. there are lots of applica
> The way to fix this situation in my view is to make the NAT box SIP
> aware by building a SIP proxy capability into the NAT box. The designers
> of NAT boxes go to great efforts to try to work around applications.
> Leave approaches such as STUN to the case where you are dealing with a
> legacy b
I think we need to look beyond whether NAT is evil (or not) and whether NATPT
is the solution (or not) and look to see how we might manage a transition to
IPv6 in a way that is not predicated on holding ISP customers hostage.
People have been there and done that, anyone remember when the anti-sp
64 matches
Mail list logo
