On 6/15/10 11:04 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And since I'm not in the best of moods I'll also answer in kind by
saying us application engineers might also be waiting for someone
with half a clue as to how to design a proper standard API to come
along and do that.
Ned,
Hi,
On 6/1/10 7:19 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is a
SOHO-grade router that has full IPv6 support, 6to4 support, full
IPv4/NAT/firewall support, plus a readonably intuitive GUI to administer it
all. If such a product
getaddrinfo() works for clients.
It does not work for servers, in particular it does not work for
peer-to-peer services that may be hidden behind layers of NAT44, NAT46
and NAT64. Port forwarding requests have to be a part of the model.
That in turn means that there has to be a security model.
The mistake there being to insist on implementation of the IPv6
specification rather than what is necessary to enable the transition
to IPv6.
You can't build a building without scaffolding. In the middle ages the
design of the scaffold was often as great an engineering feat as the
building (c.f.
Anyone can design a system for use by highly motivated geniuses.
It takes a lot more skill to build something that can be used by
people whose primary motivation is not to make 'your stuff' work.
The issue Ned raises is very typical of what most engineers spend 80%
of their time on - fixing
On 6/15/10 11:04 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And since I'm not in the best of moods I'll also answer in kind by
saying us application engineers might also be waiting for someone
with half a clue as to how to design a proper standard API to come
along and do that.
Ned,
Agreed,
Dear all,
I follow this amusing debate - I'm not reacting to this post specifically.
I would like to point out that there are people out there specifying
communication architectures for new uses of the Internet, e.g.
Cooperative Systems for communications involving vehicles. The system
At Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:30:03 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker
wrote, in response to a message from Masataka Ohta:
The URI syntax you specify is only used for some protocols and most of
the elements are defaulted. In fact we have got to the point where for
Web browsing everything is defaulted except
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Alfred HÎnes a...@tr-sys.de wrote:
At Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:30:03 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker
wrote, in response to a message from Masataka Ohta:
The URI syntax you specify is only used for some protocols and most of
the elements are defaulted. In fact we have
Yes, I am aware that some applications are IPv6 only. But I don't
think that they have enough momentum to carry the IPv4 world forward
into IPv6. The applications that are following that route are
self-selecting for requiring little or no IPv4 connectivity.
There are two models of technology
On Jun 15, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
But in a Betamax/VHS type contest, attempting to differentiate the new
through obfuscation merely raises barriers to transition. In that
circumstance you want to minimize the differences between the two
technologies so that they can be
Fred Baker wrote:
I have a solution. Let's go through those OS's and rename gethostbyname to GetHostByName.
Put in huge comments everywhere that the character string is found (man pages, which btw
already have this, and in the code itself) if you use this, you're an idiot.
Make folks use
On Jun 15, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
But in a Betamax/VHS type contest, attempting to differentiate the new
through obfuscation merely raises barriers to transition. In that
circumstance you want to minimize the differences between the two
technologies so that they
On 6/15/2010 7:30 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Yes, all we need is application engineers with a network clue. They seem to be
hard to come by.
Every layer is clue-challenged, when it comes to staffing.
Possibly at other times, too.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
The URI syntax you specify is only used for some protocols and most of
the elements are defaulted. In fact we have got to the point where for
Web browsing everything is defaulted except for the domain name.
I think we need to break the idea that a Web service should have a URL
that starts HTTP.
You completely missed the point of my post.
HTTPS is just as bad as HTTP as a URL for a Web Service.
HTTP is a low level protocol, the layering of the Web service on HTTP
or SOAP over HTTP or whatever should be abstracted away in the Web
Service URI. Just like we abstract away the fact we are
In message ikG3jf9YmyaauWK/lh7bqg@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no, Arnt Gul
brandsen writes:
Mark Andrews writes:
Seriously, I do think it is time that the root and TLD's had IPv6 only
name servers.
Why (and do you mean all 6-only or one 6-only)?
Because there are IPv6 only
In message aanlktimoqnpmkcbitki07kag9xtroyiv84rqsmo0d...@mail.gmail.com, Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only
served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry
Mark Andrews writes:
Seriously, I do think it is time that the root and TLD's had IPv6 only
name servers.
Why (and do you mean all 6-only or one 6-only)?
Arnt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 01no5qt3qgkc000...@mauve.mrochek.com, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com
w
rites:
If this is accurate, I think you need to go back and reread John Klensin's
recent messages for why this scenario really isn't all that
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I'm thinking 10, 15+ years out when there are lots of IPv6 only
served zones. Much the same way we no longer worry about MTA's
that don't know about MX records and no longer add A records
to accomodate them.
Why would there
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I note in passing that this might have played out differently had we gotten
SRV
record support in place for all protocols a lot sooner. But without it for
HTTP
in particular you're faced with the need for multiple port 80s in a lot of
cases.
What I would like
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The URI syntax you specify is only used for some protocols and most of
the elements are defaulted. In fact we have got to the point where for
Web browsing everything is defaulted except for the domain name.
The point was to change the default of 80.
I think we
to check and see if this device supports multiple IPv4 addresses and 1:1 NAT.
Unless I'm missing something, it does not. It does have NATPT, but that's not
sufficient.
I always cringe when I see such discussions hinging around what an
Internet gateway
box supports. The word supports is such a
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:57 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Sorry, this was in reference to an approach based on passed
assumptions. The inflection point for when multiple IPv4 addresses at
an access point becomes anachronistic will occur with an IPv6
connectivity imperative driven by
On 6/9/10 5:57 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
I note in passing that this might have played out differently had we
gotten SRV record support in place for all protocols a lot sooner.
But without it for HTTP in particular you're faced with the need for
multiple port 80s in a lot of cases.
Disagree.
On 6/9/10 5:57 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
I note in passing that this might have played out differently had we
gotten SRV record support in place for all protocols a lot sooner.
But without it for HTTP in particular you're faced with the need for
multiple port 80s in a lot of cases.
In message 01no5qt3qgkc000...@mauve.mrochek.com, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com w
rites:
If this is accurate, I think you need to go back and reread John Klensin's
recent messages for why this scenario really isn't all that likely to unfold
the way you think.
Ned
--On Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 +1000 Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 01no5qt3qgkc000...@mauve.mrochek.com,
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com w rites:
If this is accurate, I think you need to go back and reread
John Klensin's recent messages for why this scenario really
isn't all
On 6/10/10 3:12 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
On 6/10/10 2:48 PM Douglas Otis wrote:
Disagree. HTTP is a bad example, since it allows canonical names
to be replaced with a name offered by clients for supporting name
based virtual hosts. In other words, a single port supports
thousands of
In message 55562cf3cfc08c5c6da3d...@pst.jck.com, John C Klensin writes:
--On Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 +1000 Mark Andrews
ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 01no5qt3qgkc000...@mauve.mrochek.com,
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com w rites:
If this is accurate, I think you need to go back
On 6/7/10 12:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
My belief is that we have a serious IPv6 marketing and
transition problem until and unless we can get a level of
functionality for IPv6 (and, really, for IPv4/IPv6 mixtures of
the sorts that Ned's notes imply) at a level of investment
roughly equivalent
On 6/7/10 12:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
My belief is that we have a serious IPv6 marketing and
transition problem until and unless we can get a level of
functionality for IPv6 (and, really, for IPv4/IPv6 mixtures of
the sorts that Ned's notes imply) at a level of investment
roughly
On 06/09/2010 01:19 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And so, having no other argument to make, we resort to pejoratives?
Calling small business use of a small number of IPv4 addresses
anachronistic
doesn't change the fact that this is a widespread practice fully
supported by
an ample
On 6/9/10 1:19 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
When IPv6 is available, each device becomes
accessible with unique IP addresses. A conservative approach for scarce
IPv4 addresses is to associate dedicated servers/services with specific
ports of a single global address, a feature supported by nearly all
On 06/09/2010 01:19 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
And so, having no other argument to make, we resort to pejoratives?
Calling small business use of a small number of IPv4 addresses
anachronistic
doesn't change the fact that this is a widespread practice fully
supported by
an
On 6/9/10 1:19 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
When IPv6 is available, each device becomes
accessible with unique IP addresses. A conservative approach for scarce
IPv4 addresses is to associate dedicated servers/services with specific
ports of a single global address, a feature supported by nearly all
Sounds like you'll need to be looking up market, you're not really
looking for a soho router at the point where you've got multiple
external providers.
This device and it's ilk represted the ipv6 functionality availble in a
circa mid to late 2009 home router with a retail price of $100-$150.
They
Alternate email client usage fail. My apologies.
Ned
(offlist)
On 2010-06-02 07:36, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Ned Freedned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is
(offlist)
On 2010-06-02 07:36, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Ned Freedned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is a
SOHO-grade router that has full IPv6 support, 6to4 support, full
IPv4/NAT/firewall
Sounds like you'll need to be looking up market, you're not really
looking for a soho router at the point where you've got multiple
external providers.
Who said anything about multiple external providers? All I'm talking about is
support for a small number of static IPs on a single network
--On Sunday, June 06, 2010 14:39 -0700 Joel Jaeggli
joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Sounds like you'll need to be looking up market, you're not
really looking for a soho router at the point where you've got
multiple external providers.
This device and it's ilk represted the ipv6 functionality
Martin,
What about the IPv6 capabilities and configurability of devices that
are much more difficult to configure or update and much more expensive
to replace?
- Game consoles used for online gaming (XBox,PSP,WII)?
- Internet-capable Flatscreen-TVs
- Set-Top boxes (e.g. feature-enhanced
Nice to hear just worked in the context of IPv6. Did your router give you
just an IPv6 address, or also an IPv4 address? If both, does the IPv6 address
ever get anywhere on the Internet, or is it always NATted?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
On 6/2/10 12:39 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Nice to hear just worked in the context of IPv6. Did your router give you
just an IPv6 address, or also an IPv4 address? If both, does the IPv6 address ever get
anywhere on the Internet, or is it always NATted?
The router appears to use RFC3056, with
On 2010-06-02 07:36, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Ned Freedned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is a
SOHO-grade router that has full IPv6 support, 6to4 support, full
IPv4/NAT/firewall support, plus a
On May 30, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
1) Branding
Every technology company that has wanted to establish an
infrastructure to support their product has used branding as leverage.
Remember 'Novell Ready', 'Entrust Ready', 'Windows Vista Ready'?
We need an Internet Next
In message 4c06a72c.20...@bogus.com, joel jaeggli writes:
On 2010-06-02 07:36, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Ned Freedned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is a
SOHO-grade router that has full IPv6
On 2010-06-02 15:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
now would people please stop on this subject, the manufacturers know how
to build this stuff.
The only reference to IPv6 is IPv6 Gold
Does that mean that it does PD?
It does not.
I don't know and I'm not about
to wade through the 135 page test spec
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is a
SOHO-grade router that has full IPv6 support, 6to4 support, full
IPv4/NAT/firewall support, plus a readonably intuitive GUI to administer it
all. If such a product exists I continue to
On 2010-06-02 16:09, Martin Rex wrote:
What about the IPv6 capabilities and configurability of devices that
are much more difficult to configure or update and much more expensive
to replace?
- Game consoles used for online gaming (XBox,PSP,WII)?
- Internet-capable Flatscreen-TVs
- Set-Top
In message 4c06e306.3050...@bogus.com, joel jaeggli writes:
On 2010-06-02 15:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
now would people please stop on this subject, the manufacturers know how
to build this stuff.
The only reference to IPv6 is IPv6 Gold
Does that mean that it does PD?
It does not.
On 2010-06-02 16:40, Mark Andrews wrote:
It has both dhcpv6 client and server. it makes the assumuption that if
you want to assign v6 nameservers that you'll do so with stateful dhcpv6.
the product is closing in on a year old so I imagine the product
managers fixed the feature set in stone
On 30/05/2010 23:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on
their part. People are not going to switch their home networks over to
IPv6 if it means a single device on the network is going to stop
working. In my case it would cost me
On 5/30/2010 3:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
We keep coming back to the same old problem and the same reasons we
are going to hope it solves itself without having to change anything.
1) Its the wrong type of pain
IPv4 exhaustion does cause problems, but not really enough problems or
On 30/05/2010 23:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on
their part. People are not going to switch their home networks over to
IPv6 if it means a single device on the network is going to stop
working. In my case it would cost
On 1 Jun 2010, at 18:19, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
As I've stated previously, I believe the main piece that's missing is a
SOHO-grade router that has full IPv6 support, 6to4 support, full
IPv4/NAT/firewall support, plus a readonably intuitive GUI to administer it
all. If such a product
On 6/1/10 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 30/05/2010 23:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote :
People are not going to use IPv6 if it takes the slightest effort on
their part. People are not going to switch their home networks over to
IPv6 if it means a single device on the network
In message aanlktilmjpietg4hybcb_pik9chxtsjekhn0r3vo2...@mail.gmail.com, Phil
lip Hallam-Baker writes:
We keep coming back to the same old problem and the same reasons we
are going to hope it solves itself without having to change anything.
1) Its the wrong type of pain
IPv4 exhaustion
59 matches
Mail list logo
