Michel Py wrote:
That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global
ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This
brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended
private space or make it global unicast.
I think we bite the
Michel Py wrote:
That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as global
ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This
brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended
private space or make it global unicast.
When develloping IASON,
On 14-apr-2006, at 15:52, Peter Dambier wrote:
That being said, I do acknowledge that larger companies such as
global
ISPs do have a problem with the RFC1918 space being too small. This
brings the debate of what to do with class E, either make it extended
private space or make it global
real time inventory management
Wow! I've heard all sorts of claims for what IPv6 will do/include, but I
must say that's a new one
It's like Wal-Mart approach: the inventory constantly moves, it never sits
still on
the shelf. IPv6 addressed RFID tags look promising.
[EMAIL
v
|
/\
+-+ / \ ++
| Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money |
| To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel |
+-+ \ / ++
\/
M. Tough call.
Yes, it is. It's called long term strategic
investment
Brian,
Michel Py wrote:
v
|
/\
+-+ / \ ++
| Upgrade |__/ ? \__| Give money |
| To IPv6 | \/ | to Michel |
+-+ \ / ++
\/
M. Tough call.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 when Eric wrote RFC1687 it
would not have done anything to their bottom line as of today and wasted
my money.
If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 by now they would have an efficient
production and real time inventory management; would have saved
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Boeing had rolled out IPv6 in 1993-1994 by now they would have ...
real time inventory management
Wow! I've heard all sorts of claims for what IPv6 will do/include, but I
must say that's a new one
Noel
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11-apr-2006, at 15:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with
provider independece.
You'll have to produce the BGP4 table for a pretty compelling simulation
model of a worldwide Internet with a hundred
On 4/11/06 12:33 AM, John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, I've needed to power-cycle these NAT boxes every few weeks, to
clear out the garbage.
I'm curios to understand more of what you mean by this? Are you running out
of ports? Do you have any ideas what is causing this? (I
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On 4/11/06 12:33 AM, John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, I've needed to power-cycle these NAT boxes every few weeks, to
clear out the garbage.
I'm curios to understand more of what you mean by this? Are you running out
of ports? Do you have any ideas
Eric Fleischman wrote:
that us end users will go to great lengths to avoid any costly
network upgrade that does not contribute anything to our bottom
line. Think about it: why would we spend tens of millions of
dollars to get equivalent network connectivity to what we
already have? It makes
Lars-Erik,
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize
that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes
because they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
consumers want to buy them.
I do not
On 11-apr-2006, at 4:39, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes
naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new
device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite
universe of 0 and 1.
Maybe in some part of the
John Loughney wrote:
Lars-Erik,
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize
that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes
because they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
consumers want to buy them.
Peter Dambier wrote:
Just for curiousity: The TI chipset AR7 is the core of a couple of boxes.
The all run linux and you can telnet them. They can route. No need for
NAT
My box is an Eumex 300 IP from t-online.de
It is the same as the Fritzbox from AVM.
Netgear, Siemens, Linksys and
You know, you could assign IPv6 addresses in a strictly geographic way and you'd have more than enough for everyone, everywhere,with very simple routing. But of course that won't be done.In fact some people are doing this todaywithin their networks.IPv6 marveles ability to "address every
...
However, geographic addressing could give us aggregation with provider
independece. If you examine European routes in the routing table of a
router on the American west coast, you'll see that the vast majority of
those routes point towards the same next hop. So if you could express
an
John Loughney wrote:
We're over-analyzing things.
I don't think so. The Internet is no longer this thing for researchers
and geeks it used to be. Now it is a global commercial product. As long
as we keep producing protocols designed by researchers and geeks for
researchers and geeks with total
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reality (was RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The world needs the wake up call that reality is about to hit them
in
the face and they will need all the time there is left to develop
a
managed IPv6
On 10-apr-2006, at 7:43, Tony Hain wrote:
Instead of dissecting the numbers into chunks that give you the
answer you
want, how about looking at the big picture?
[...]
The real issue is that Geoff's linear projections against the
current .75
/8's per month going out from the RIRs to hit a
The real issue is that Geoff's linear projections against the
current .75
/8's per month going out from the RIRs to hit a 2012 date don't
match the
historical growth.
I suppose I should respond here, particularly as the quote about using linear
models is not a correct one.
The projection
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The world needs the wake up call that reality is about to hit them in
the face and they will need all the time there is left to develop a
managed IPv6 deployment plan. If they don't start now they will be
forced into a crash deployment
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem is that nothing matches historical growth, because it
contains elements that have proven resistant against modeling.
That's the way I see it myself.
Until that time, I'll continue to assume 2010 - 2015 with
2012 as the most likely moment for IPv4 to
On 10-apr-2006, at 16:35, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to complete
exhaustion
of the IPv4 address space (Version 1). Some clever people worked
out this
ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to
be a
superior solution to
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Many years ago now, a funny thing happened on the way to complete exhaustion
of the IPv4 address space (Version 1). Some clever people worked out this
ugly hack, which the marketplace judged - despite its ugliness - to be a
superior solution to the forklift upgrade to IPv6.
--On Monday, 10 April, 2006 19:31 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Everyone who thinks that regular users are going to forego
IPv4 connectivity in favor of IPv6 connectivity as long as
IPv4 still works to a remotely usable degree is a card
carrying member of the
it certainly will be interesting to see what an IP address is really worth.It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes naturally when they build a new house.In a similar waywhen a new device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite universe of 0 and 1. Theactual
To make things worse site local IPv6 addresses were deprecated. So you
dont have a chance to number your machines locally and play with IPv6
for learning. You have to get an official /64 network to run your site.
But now you have Locally Assigned Local Addresses and if you
do
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no idea exactly what it will be (maybe a free market
in IPv4 addresses, plus layered NAT's, to name just one
possibility), but there are a lot of clever people out there,
and *once events force them to turn their attention to this
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
That's the popular view. In reality, people deployed NAT mostly for
reasons that have little to do with the global IPv4 address
depletion.
They deployed it mainly because getting an IPv4 address costs money,
and involves considerable red tape. Mainly because it
John C Klensin writes:
So, let's assume that I'm an ISP and (i) I discover that I've
switched to IPv6 to avoid needing to use private addressing in my
core network, (ii) I discover that it is now costing me more to
support IPv4 customers (because they require protocol and address
translation
Peter Sherbin writes:
It is worth about the same as a postal address that comes
naturally when they build a new house. In a similar way when a new
device comes to existence it gets an address out of infinite
universe of 0 and 1.
That would only be true if IP addresses were geographically
AM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: 'Austin Schutz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iab@iab.org;
'Keith Moore'; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.
On 29-mrt-2006, at 2:17, Tony Hain wrote:
In the past 10 years, there have been several years where the growth
of the growth was less
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
ATT used to charge for any telephone color other than black, even though the cost of producing a telephone was the same no matter what color it was.
ATT also used to charge for additional private IP addresses. I remember one company had a bussiness package with
FWIW-(which isn't much), IMO people like NAT because
it lets them do what they want without paying more
or getting permission. Cause I think thats really
all they want from any solution.
ISP fees for additional addresses just leveraging an
opportunity to extract a few more dollars. The
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
John Calcote writes:
I'll just jump in here for a second and mention also that vendors
offer what they have to, not what they can. They want to provide the
most bang for the buck, so to speak. These companies don't offer
the multiple-static-ip-address option today
Peter Dambier writes:
http://www.manitu.de/
They offer you:
fixed IPv4 address with reverse lookup at 9.99 Euros per month.
I don't live in Germany. The exception does not disprove the rule.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize
that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't sell NAT boxes
because they think NAT is good, they sell NAT boxes because
consumers want to buy them.
I do not think consumers in
Lars,
Michel Py wrote:
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to
realize that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't
sell NAT boxes because they think NAT is good, they sell
NAT boxes because consumers want to buy them.
Lars-Erik Jonsson wrote:
I do not think consumers
On 5-Apr-2006, at 11:09, Michel Py wrote:
Your argument does not hold water. Do a survey of customers who
have the
advanced or pro package (with higher speed and multiple static IP
addresses) and you will find that the very vast majority of them
(if not
all) use NAT anyway even though
Michel Py wrote:
Your argument does not hold water. Do a survey of customers
who have the advanced or pro package (with higher speed
and multiple static IP addresses) and you will find that the
very vast majority of them (if not all) use NAT anyway even
though they have enough public
On 5-Apr-2006, at 12:16, Michel Py wrote:
Of anywhere where ISPs offer a package with static IP addresses. I
mean
a survey of regular customers, not fellow IETFers or geek buddies. How
many of them actually have multiple static IPs and how many are behind
NAT nevertheless. Run your survey
--On Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 08:09 -0700 Michel Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to
realize that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't
sell NAT boxes because they think NAT is good, they sell
NAT boxes because
John C Klensin wrote:
It is simply not possible to configure those devices
to support use of static public addresses for hosts
on the LAN side.
First, this is totally false, see below. Second, if you want to use
public IPs on the LAN side you just have to plug your hosts directly in
the back
On 5-apr-2006, at 17:09, Michel Py wrote:
By far, the volume of traffic is
peer-to-peer (mostly questionable in terms of copyright). All major
P2P
apps for the most widely used protocols (bittorrent, edonkey etc)
cross
NAT nicely, most have UPNP support (no configuration of the NAT
box)
--On Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 11:23 -0700 Michel Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
It is simply not possible to configure those devices
to support use of static public addresses for hosts
on the LAN side.
First, this is totally false, see below. Second, if you want
to
-John Calcote ([EMAIL PROTECTED])Sr. Software EngineeerNovell, Inc.
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/5/2006 10:43:36 am
--On Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 08:09 -0700 Michel Py[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel Py wrote: Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to realize that
On 5-apr-2006, at 21:57, John C Klensin wrote:
they all had an
option to run with or without NAT. Many of them also have the
option to have a bridge mode allowing the customer to
provide their own router/firewall solution.
It is that bridge mode that is critical. As I indicated
above,
At 11:23 AM -0700 4/5/06, Michel Py wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
It is simply not possible to configure those devices
to support use of static public addresses for hosts
on the LAN side.
First, this is totally false, see below.
No, it is *partially* false, but unfortunately true in
--On Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 22:24 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-apr-2006, at 21:57, John C Klensin wrote:
they all had an
option to run with or without NAT. Many of them also have the
option to have a bridge mode allowing the customer to
provide their own
John Calcote wrote:
I'll just jump in here for a second and mention also that vendors
offer what they have to, not what they can. They want to provide
the most bang for the buck, so to speak. These companies don't
offer the multiple-static-ip-address option today because most
ISP's don't
John Calcote writes:
I'll just jump in here for a second and mention also that vendors
offer what they have to, not what they can. They want to provide the
most bang for the buck, so to speak. These companies don't offer
the multiple-static-ip-address option today because most ISP's don't
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
you can make it do IPv6 NAT. Simple client-server protocols
such as HTTP worked without incident as expected. However,
I also tried FTP, which really isn't that bad as NAT-breaking
protocols go. It didn't work because the server saw an illegal
EPRT request. In
Christian,
What you wrote is doubly incorrect.
First, you missed the context:
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Needless to say, the real-time taken for this process to complete
- i.e. for routes to a particular destination to stabilize, after a
topology change which affects some subset of them - is
Why would a service provider give up skimming the cream with that
(nearly free) extra cash that weirdos like us hand them for real IPv4
addresses?
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Andrew,
And people wonder why NATs proliferate... much of the world has no
option but to live with them. This is a direct result of policy
discouraging IPv4 address allocation.
sorry for asking, but what policy are you referring to?
RIR policy?
Can you point out any RIRs policy that
On 30-mrt-2006, at 10:29, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
And people wonder why NATs proliferate... much of the world has no
option but to live with them. This is a direct result of policy
discouraging IPv4 address allocation.
sorry for asking, but what policy are you referring to?
RIR
On 30-mrt-2006, at 6:26, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
We currently have 1/8th of the IPv6 address space set aside for
global unicast purposes ...
Do you know how many addresses that is? One eighth of 128 bits is a
125-bit address space, or
42,535,295,865,117,307,932,921,825,928,971,026,432
On 28 mar 2006, at 18.00, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NAT is a dead end. If the Internet does not develop a way
to obsolete
NAT, the Internet will die. It will gradually be replaced
by networks
that are more-or-less IP based but
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The thing that is good about IPv6 is that once you get yourself a /
64, you can subdivide it yourself and still have four billion times
the IPv4 address space. (But you'd be giving up the autoconfiguration
Keith Moore writes:
I find myself wondering, don't they get support calls from customers
having to deal with the problems caused by the NATs?
Sure, and the reply is I'm sorry, but we don't support multiple
computers on residential accounts.
___
Austin Schutz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:00:44AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
1996199719981999200020012002200320042005
2.7 1.2 1.6 1.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.4 3.4 4.5
(The numbers represent the number of addresses
--On Thursday, March 30, 2006 08:47 -0800 Peter Sherbin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone calls up for help with a
configuration problem, that may be six month's of
profits from that customer eaten up in the cost of
answering the call.
That is because the current Internet pricing has
I find myself wondering, don't they get support calls from
customers having to deal with the problems caused by the NATs?
Because they don't answer them. In the process of doing the
work that led to RFC 4084, I reviewed the terms and conditions
of service of a large number of ISPs in
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:26:40PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If that is indeed the case then the enhanced nat road for ipv6
begins to make much more sense, even in the nearer term.
I remember someone saying something about enhanced NAT here a few
days ago but I can't find it...
Thus spake Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Now of course this ISP does have a TC that prohibits running a server,
but server is a pretty vague term, and you don't have to be running
any kind of server to suffer from NAT brain-damage.
My ISP has ingeniously defined a server as any application that
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Needless to say, the real-time taken for this process to complete
- i.e. for routes to a particular destination to stabilize, after
a topology change which affects some subset of them - is dominated
by the speed-of-light transmission delays across the Internet
fabric. You
From: Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Needless to say, the real-time taken for this process to complete
- i.e. for routes to a particular destination to stabilize, after a
topology change which affects some subset of them - is dominated by
the speed-of-light transmission
Noel Chiappa wrote:
If you think there aren't still stability issues, why don't
you try getting rid of all the BGP dampening stuff, then?
Have any major ISP's out there done that?
Dampening is part of the protocol and has nothing to do with the speed
of light. Removing it is akin to removing
Dampening is part of the protocol and has nothing to do with the speed
of light.
Well, not really. Assume a simplistic model of the Internet with M
core routers (in the default free zone) and N leaf AS, i.e. networks
that have their own non-aggregated prefix. Now, assume that each of the
leaf
Well, in the case of IPv6 we're currently playing in a sandbox 1/8 the
size of the available address space. So if what you say is true, and we
manage to use up an exponential resource in linear time, then we can
change our approach and try again with the second 1/8 of the space,
without having to
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 04:12:24PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're
location-independent
Huh? Did you mean identifiers are a lot easier to deal with
if they're location-independent?
I really was talking about
You didn't mean locators are a lot easier to deal with if the name
has nothing to do with where the thing it names is, you meant
locators are a lot easier to deal with if their meaning (i.e. the
thing they are bound to) is the same no matter where you are when
you evaluate them.
This is a
On 29-mrt-2006, at 16:17, Keith Moore wrote:
it would be okay if the only apps you needed to run were two-party
apps. in other words, it's not just users and hosts that need
addresses to be the same from everywhere in the network - apps need
stable addressing so that a process on host A
it would be okay if the only apps you needed to run were two-party
apps. in other words, it's not just users and hosts that need
addresses to be the same from everywhere in the network - apps need
stable addressing so that a process on host A can say to a process on
host B, contact this
On 29-mrt-2006, at 16:43, Keith Moore wrote:
it would be okay if the only apps you needed to run were two-
party apps. in other words, it's not just users and hosts that
need addresses to be the same from everywhere in the network -
apps need stable addressing so that a process on host A
it would be okay if the only apps you needed to run were
two-party apps. in other words, it's not just users and hosts
that need addresses to be the same from everywhere in the
network - apps need stable addressing so that a process on host
A can say to a process on host B, contact this process
Jeroen Massar wrote:
I guess you missed out on:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space
I declined to co-author it, as a matter of fact. It started as GUSL
(Globally Unique Site Locals), did you miss that season? Read the dark
side stuff I will post later...
Austin Schutz wrote:
On 29-mrt-2006, at 18:34, Keith Moore wrote:
- DNS is often out of sync with reality
Dynamic DNS updates are your friend.
From an app developer's point-of-view, DDNS is worthless. DDNS is far
from universally implemented, and when it is implemented, it's often
implemented badly. DDNS can
Point made many times, and the proof is in the pudding: if they're using
it so widely it means it works for them.
Actually, no. The world is full of examples of practices and mechanisms
that are widely adopted and entrenched that work very poorly. You only
have to look at any day's
- DNS is often out of sync with reality
Dynamic DNS updates are your friend.
From an app developer's point-of-view, DDNS is worthless. DDNS is far
from universally implemented, and when it is implemented, it's often
implemented badly. DDNS can actually makes DNS a less reliable source
of
Are you saying that ENUM is a dead end?
F.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
819 692 1383
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
- DNS is often out of sync with reality
Dynamic DNS updates are your friend.
From an app developer's point-of-view, DDNS is worthless. DDNS is far
from universally
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...including the RIR reserves which are at an
all time high of nearly 400 million)
Also, keep in mind that the RIRs are not the only ones to have reserves.
The address space itself has reserves, class E for example. ISPs have
reserves, and customer have reserves too
Francois Menard wrote:
Are you saying that ENUM is a dead end?
F.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
819 692 1383
ENUM is a dead born child.
ENUM is supposed to be good for VoIP. Well, I do have VoIP but my VoIP
does work allthough ENUM does not. My router could use ENUM - but which
one should I ask,
From: Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We aren't *ever* going to give everyone PI space (at least, PI space
in whatever namespace the routers use to forward packets) ...
Routing (i.e. path-finding) algorithms simply cannot cope with
tracking 10^9 individual destinations (see
On Thu Mar 30 00:06:25 2006, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
Now, consider that in that city one does go by street numbers but
by building names. As we did for a very long time and many still
do. So our building is named by the City Registry Innovation
House - and if a day it is scrapped and
At 01:28 30/03/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu Mar 30 00:06:25 2006, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
Now, consider that in that city one does go by street numbers but
by building names. As we did for a very long time and many still
do. So our building is named by the City Registry Innovation
At 20:46 29/03/2006, Michel Py wrote:
Just to make it clear: I'm not in denial and v4 exhaustion is not FUD,
but the Internet is not going to stop the day after we allocate the last
bit of v4 space either.
The issue is not so much when we will be prevented from doing what we
currently do. It
Thus spake Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We aren't *ever* going to give everyone PI space (at least, PI space
in whatever namespace the routers use to forward packets) ...
Routing (i.e. path-finding) algorithms simply cannot cope with
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
So how big would you like addresses to be, then?
It's not how big they are, it's how they are allocated. And they are
allocated very poorly, even recklessly, which is why they run out so
quickly. It's true that engineers always underestimate required
capacity, but
On 29/03/2006, at 5:10 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On 03/28/06 at 7:00am +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, but they reduce the amount of money you must pay to your ISP
each month by a factor of ten or more.
Your ISP charges you 9 times as much for IPv4 addresses
Interesting discussion.
Keith is hitting all the nails on the head. Phillip seems to suggest
that consumers buy NATs out of choice. They don't have any choice.
I surveyed my final years students last month. Just four have a static
IPv4 allocation for their home network, and only one has more
Today, 90% of the phones in the world are still analog. Including
mine,
in the capital of California and my buddies' in the heart of Silicon
Valley.
the (static) statement that 90% of phones are analog seems very
wrong to me.
according to newest ITU-D estimates, by the end of 2004,
On 28 mar 2006, at 00.11, Keith Moore wrote:
NAT is a done deal. It's well supported at network edges. It solves
the addressing issue, which was what the market wanted. It voted
for NAT with
dollars and time. It is the long term solution - not because it is
better, but
because
Tim Chown wrote:
If you deploy IPv6 NAT, you may as well stay with IPv4.
Tim,
You're the one who convinced me some three years ago that there will be
IPv6 NAT no matter what, what's the message here?
See also
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-02.txt
Remember: Users
[cc trimmed]
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 01:54 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
People will still want to do NAT on IPv6.
Yes, and since site-locals have been deprecated they will also hijack an
unallocated block of addresses to use as private, same what happened
prior to RFC 1597 for the very same
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:35:21PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
now if what you're saying is that we need a standard NAT extension
protocol that does that, I might agree. though IMHO the easiest way to
do that is to make the NAT boxes speak IPv6.
Yes, I am saying we need this or
On Tue Mar 28 11:33:27 2006, Austin Schutz wrote:
The limitations of NAT you mention make little difference to most
of the NAT users I am familiar with. These are typically end users
or
small organizations. They generally don't know what they are
missing, and NAT
works adequately well
If you can't provide the functionality that the customers want your protocol
purity comes down to 'you have to do it our way, oh and by the way we have
no interest in listening to you'.
which is why some of us wrote draft-ietf-v6ops-nap
Brian
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
