US DoD and IPv6

So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US DoD's news site (http://www.defense.gov/news/), which quote Kris Strance, "the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod]", as saying: "{the DoD} philosophy is one that when a component has a mission need or a business case

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US > DoD's news site (http://www.defense.gov/news/), which quote Kris Strance, > "the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod]", as saying: > > "{the DoD} philosophy is one t

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 2010-09-28 13:59, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> So, I came across a interesting recent (June 24, 2010) article on the US >> DoD's news site (http://www.defense.gov/news/), which quote Kris Strance, >> "the chief of internet protocol for the [Dod

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Phill, On 2010-09-28 16:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The US DoD is running out of IPv4 space? Where did I say that? > > I very much doubt it. Maybe, maybe not... how would we know? > > Problem with the idea that resource depletion will drive adoption of IPv6 is > that it ignores the fac

Re: US DoD and IPv6

GOSIP http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1039 Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 9/27/10 7:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2010-09-28 13:59, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> The date slippage is not a big deal, I'm ignoring that. What is of more >>> interest is that it appears (from the news story) that there has been a >>>

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Hi Noel. I don't think there is any real change in DoD policy. Anyone who has followed the DoD IPv6 work more closely or who sells products to the DoD has long seen that the IPv6 requirements are more nuanced and depend on a lot of factors. And there have always been exceptions and waivers, depend

Re: US DoD and IPv6

The US DoD is running out of IPv4 space? I very much doubt it. Problem with the idea that resource depletion will drive adoption of IPv6 is that it ignores the fact that people who have plenty of IPv4 addresses may not be that worried about the inability of others to get hold of them. And some p

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Oh and this just in today, a new OMB directive for all of USG (http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/28/kundra-sets-new-ipv6-deadlines.aspx): > “The federal government is committed to the operational deployment and > use of Internet Protocol version 6,” states the transition memo, which > was releas

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Earlier, Joel Jaggli wrote: > The fact of the matter as a vendor, is that if you want > to get through network equipment requirements for, for example > the army approved products list (AAPL), ipv6 conformance testing > is now no longer an annnex, it's simply part of the process. Interesting to k

Re: US DoD and IPv6

--On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 14:34 -0400 RJ Atkinson wrote: >... > However, in this case, that question is directly answered > in the article that Noel originally mentioned. > To quote directly: > "I don't forsee a crisis, per se … the big driver, > in my mind, excluding DoD

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> > A bit before then, Thomas Narten wrote: > > There are DoD networks where IPv6 is running today, > > and there certainly are networks where it is not. > > The quote above seems very precisely phrased, > and as an accidental result seems a bit misleading. > > It appears to refer to the Defense Re

Re: US DoD and IPv6

TJ wrote: > A bit before then, Thomas Narten wrote: > > There are DoD networks where IPv6 is running today, > > and there certainly are networks where it is not. > > The quote above seems very precisely phrased, > and as an accidental result seems a bit misleading. > > It appears to refer to the

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: Thomas Narten > Just as a general FYI, for those not following this space more closely, > industry's position wrt IPv6 has clearly shifted during the last year. > ... A year ago, many big operators and companies were still taking a > wait-and-see approach to IPv6. Over

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: RJ Atkinson > It seems so incredibly unlikely that end-to-end connectivity (i.e. > without NAT, NAPT, or other middleboxes) is going to increase in future. Indeed. It seems that the likelihood of IPv6 being used ubiquitously to provide end-end IPv6-IPv6 connectivity, as origi

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 5, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: RJ Atkinson > >> It seems so incredibly unlikely that end-to-end connectivity (i.e. >> without NAT, NAPT, or other middleboxes) is going to increase in future. > > Indeed. It seems that the likelihood of IPv6 being used ubiquitously to >

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> "Noel" == Noel Chiappa writes: Noel> So what %-age of traffic across major backbones is now IPv6? Noel> And how quickly is that changing? >From what I've read, it's about the same size as the IPv4 in 1992, and it's growing at the same rate it did then. -- ] He who is tired

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: Michael Richardson >> So what %-age of traffic across major backbones is now IPv6? ^ > From what I've read, it's about the same size as the IPv4 in 1992 I don't think so... unless you meant 'total number of packets', not 'percentage' (as I asked). The

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Michael Richardson > >>> So what %-age of traffic across major backbones is now IPv6? > ^ >> From what I've read, it's about the same size as the IPv4 in 1992 > > I don't think so... unless you meant 'total number of pac

RE: US DoD and IPv6

>> Noel Chiappa wrote: >> The interesting question, of course, is whether (and if so, when) the IETF >> will deign to notice this reality - or will it continue to prefer to stick >> its collective fingers in its ears and keep going 'neener-neener-neener'. > Keith Moore wrote: > Do you actually hav

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Michel Py wrote: > Look what you have done: not only we have more NATv4 than ever, but now > we also have NAT46, NAT64, NAT464...whatever and all of these with heavy > ALG layers to make it more palatable. FYI, with end to end NATv4, all the applications, including PORT command of FTP, just work

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Noel, On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > So whatever's going to happen when IPv4 > addresses run out, a mass conversion of traffic to IPv6 probably isn't it. Of course not. Obtaining IPv4 addresses will simply become more expensive, with all that implies. Folks that depend on a

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Michel Py wrote: >>> Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> The interesting question, of course, is whether (and if so, when) the > IETF >>> will deign to notice this reality - or will it continue to prefer to > stick >>> its collective fingers in its ears and keep going > 'neener-ne

RE: US DoD and IPv6

> From: "Michel Py" > you are one of the main persons behind the failure of IPv6. I think that's unfair. To my mind (when I sat and did a long post-mortem after the IETF adopted IPv6 almost two decades ago, trying to understand why I hadn't been able to convince people to do something d

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: Keith Moore > Do you actually have a point to make That depends. Are you still of the opinion that IPv6 will, in our lifetimes, become ubiquitously deployed, thereby restoring us to a world of transparent end-end, or do you think we should acknowledge that that's not going to hap

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Keith Moore > >> Do you actually have a point to make > > That depends. Are you still of the opinion that IPv6 will, in our lifetimes, > become ubiquitously deployed, thereby restoring us to a world of transparent > end-end, or do you t

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 06/10/2010 01:43 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: > Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly > doesn't look good for end-to-end transparency.But unlike 10 years > ago, today there's a widespread understanding of the problems caused > by lack of transparency, and much le

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 06/10/2010 01:43 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: > >> Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly >> doesn't look good for end-to-end transparency.But unlike 10 years >> ago, today there's a widespread understanding of

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > DNS has never been, and never will be, suitable as a general endpoint naming > mechanism. What do you mean by "a general endpoint naming mechanism"? Regards, -drc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org h

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Keith Moore > wrote: > The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly everybody who > routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the architecture and alter the > traffic to optimize for h

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the >> app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask >> whether the NAT is breaking the app, or whether the NAT is making it >> clear that the app was a

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: RJ Atkinson > >> It seems so incredibly unlikely that end-to-end connectivity (i.e. >> without NAT, NAPT, or other middleboxes) is going to increase in > future. > > Indeed. It seems that the likelihood of IPv6 being used ub

RE: US DoD and IPv6

Gentlemen: The IPv6 deployment is what it is and nobody is to blame that it isn't greater or less than it is. It should not surprise anybody that IPv6 hasn't been more widely deployed to date, because, after all, I explained back in 1993 in RFC 1687 why that would happen. Going forward, there

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly everybody who > routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the architecture and alter the > traffic to optimize for his/her specific circumstances - and the end users > and their wid

Re: US DoD and IPv6

And what would we say of architects who continued to build to their original plan after the bombs had been flying for twenty years and showed no sign of stopping? I would prefer the architects with the plans for a bomb shelter. On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Oct 6, 20

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > And what would we say of architects who continued to build to their original > plan after the bombs had been flying for twenty years and showed no sign of > stopping? which architects would those be? I see little sign of architectural

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore > wrote: > >>> When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the >>> app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask >>> whether the NAT is breaking the app

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:46 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> DNS has never been, and never will be, suitable as a general endpoint naming >> mechanism. > > What do you mean by "a general endpoint naming mechanism"? It's a good question, but it might take

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 06/10/2010 05:40 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: >>> It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP >>> addresses and port numbers in their payloads, as this is the only >>> way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applications >>> to make contact with particular processes at part

RE: US DoD and IPv6

> Michel Py wrote: >> Has it occurred to you that, if it was not for your >> blind opposition to NAT, we could be living in a world >> of 6to4 implemented in the ubiquitous NAT box? > Keith Moore wrote: > Why do you think I proposed 6to4 in the first place? There > was no vendor interest in puttin

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Michel Py wrote: > Problem is that IPv6 is much more than IPv4 with more bits. Please note > that this is not a "I told you so" post; I would certainly have opposed > what I will suggest below. Agreed. > As of ID/LOC separation, the sad truth is that we both tried, and we > both failed. And we'r

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: David Conrad > ISPs that have routers that are on the edge memory- or CPU-wise should > really consider upgrading, as there is likely to be a flood of long > prefix IPv4 routes as the markets take effect. Excellent point. Happily, there are a number of things being worked

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 6, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 06/10/2010 05:40 p.m., Keith Moore wrote: > It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP addresses and port numbers in their payloads, as this is the only way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applicat

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Keith, On Oct 7, 2010, at 4:32 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > As currently defined, IP assumes a global address space that is used > consistently throughout the network, I actually think it's a bit worse than that. As currently defined, IP assumes a global address space in which each individual add

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:32 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Keith, > > On Oct 7, 2010, at 4:32 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> As currently defined, IP assumes a global address space that is used >> consistently throughout the network, > > I actually think it's a bit worse than that. As currently defined, I

Re: US DoD and IPv6

David Conrad wrote: > Topological aggregation to permit scaling was an afterthought > that doesn't fit particularly well into that architecture. Topological aggregation to divide an IP address into network and local address parts with classes A, B and C to permit scaling has been there from the b

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: Keith Moore > What doesn't work well is to have everyone decide for himself how to > change the architecture. The reason we have/had a free-for-all on the architectural front is that the IETF's choice for architectural direction (15 years ago) was non-viable (i.e. wrong); it

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, "it wasn't economically feasible ... and it didn't offer any interesting/desirable new capabilities" were mild compared to an even bigger defect: There simply wasn't a technically feasible plan on the table for co-existence and intercommunicatio

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Since the one legacy protocol that has a dependency on IP address constancy > is FTP, it would seem to me to be much easier to upgrade FTP to remove the > dependency than to try to control the network. There are other protocols hiding out there. MATIP, RFC2351 (not

RE: US DoD and IPv6

> any design for architecural change (e.g. introducing separation of location > and identity) is going to be somewhat > ugly, because we don't have a clean sheet of paper to work with. Location independent identifiers can be introduced at the transport or application layer, without having to cha

Re: US DoD and IPv6

--On Friday, October 08, 2010 09:47 -0400 Steve Crocker wrote: > Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, "it wasn't > economically feasible ... and it didn't offer any > interesting/desirable new capabilities" were mild compared to > an even bigger defect: There simply wasn't a techn

Re: US DoD and IPv6

And our friends at the ITU are standing by ready to help us too :-) 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: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, John C Klensin w

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Keith Moore > >> What doesn't work well is to have everyone decide for himself how to >> change the architecture. > > The reason we have/had a free-for-all on the architectural front is that the > IETF's choice for architectural direction

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Fri Oct 8 17:10:56 2010, Keith Moore wrote: Except that neither middleboxes in general nor NATs in particular were a direct result of the decision to adopt IPv6. NATs were not originally driven by a shortage of IPv4 addresses. In the consumer market they were driven by what came to be

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 8, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Oct 8 17:10:56 2010, Keith Moore wrote: >> Except that neither middleboxes in general nor NATs in particular were a >> direct result of the decision to adopt IPv6. NATs were not originally >> driven by a shortage of IPv4 addresses. I

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Noel Chiappa wrote: > Which is why I am urging the IETF to be _realistic_ now, and accept the world > as it actually is, and set direction from here on out based on that, and not > on what we wish would happen. The only realistic approach is to accept IPv4 at least for next 10 or 20 years, which

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Dave Cridland wrote: > So currently, a NAT provides: > > - A degree of de-facto firewalling for everyone. > - An immunity to renumbering for enterprises. > - Fully automated network routing for ISPs. > > If technologies could be introduced to tackle especially the last two, I > think the advant

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 8, 2010, at 10:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 08, 2010 09:47 -0400 Steve Crocker > wrote: > >> Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, "it wasn't >> economically feasible ... and it didn't offer any >> interesting/desirable new capabilities" were mil

Re: US DoD and IPv6

[Replying to John, Steve, others] This might sound like a completely off the wall suggestion. But is it possible that we could use an IPv4 extension header to carry the internal address of a NAT-ed host in some way and thus preserve end-to-end addressability? Assume for the sake of argument that

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Fri Oct 8 17:49:28 2010, Keith Moore wrote: On Oct 8, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Oct 8 17:10:56 2010, Keith Moore wrote: >> Except that neither middleboxes in general nor NATs in particular were a direct result of the decision to adopt IPv6. NATs were not origina

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Fri Oct 8 16:14:02 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: If the application is going to use the AA record it has to have an IPv4.1 stack. This causes it to emit IPv4 packets where the first four bytes are sent in the IPv4 header and the remaining four bytes are sent as a header option. Ca

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 8 Oct 2010, at 23:51, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Fri Oct 8 16:14:02 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> If the application is going to use the AA record it has to have an IPv4.1 >> stack. This causes it to emit IPv4 packets where the first four bytes are >> sent in the IPv4 header and the remai

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >>> If the application is going to use the AA record it has to have >>> an IPv4.1 stack. This causes it to emit IPv4 packets where the >>> first four bytes are sent in the IPv4 header and the remaining >>> four bytes are sent as a header option. > I think this should b

Re: US DoD and IPv6

John, See below for an attempt at a more nuanced position. Steve On Oct 8, 2010, at 10:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 08, 2010 09:47 -0400 Steve Crocker > wrote: > >> Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, "it wasn't >> economically feasible ... and it d

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Mebbe. I confess I didn't study the details of the competing proposals at the time because I was confident the people who were heavily involved surely had things under control. Steve On Oct 10, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> A comp

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: A compatible solution would have been better, but I don't think IPv4... -- were designed in a way that permitted a compatible extension. Oh? Perhaps: 1. Adopt an IPv6 as Steve Deering originally designed it[1]: A basic upgrade to the IPv4 h

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/10/2010 3:44 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: Mebbe. I confess I didn't study the details of the competing proposals at the time because I was confident the people who were heavily involved surely had things under control. Alas... Along with the imposition of ASN.1's complexities as the MIB

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/10/10 4:02 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 10/10/2010 3:44 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> Mebbe. I confess I didn't study the details of the competing >> proposals at >> the time because I was confident the people who were heavily involved >> surely >> had things under control. > > > Alas.

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 10, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> A compatible solution would have been better, but I don't think IPv4... -- >> were designed in a way that permitted a compatible extension. > > > Oh? > > Perhaps: > > 1. Adopt an IPv6 as

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/10/2010 4:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Was it second system syndrome, or was a slowness to realize that the time to drastically change the system increased from months to (effective) infinity somewhere between 1988 and 1994 ? In fact, it was /too much/ realization of likely deployme

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Dave CROCKER wrote: > 1. Adopt an IPv6 as Steve Deering originally designed it[1]: A basic > upgrade to the IPv4 header, with more address bits, an extensibility > mechanisms for adding fields later, and removal of some bits that > weren't needed. That is an option because, with port restricte

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: A compatible solution would have been better, but I don't think IPv4... -- were designed in a way that permitted a compatible extension. Oh? Perhaps: 1. Adopt an IPv6 as Steve Deering originally designed it[1]: A basic upgrade to the IPv4 h

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/10/2010 3:44 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: Mebbe. I confess I didn't study the details of the competing proposals at the time because I was confident the people who were heavily involved surely had things under control. Alas... Along with the imposition of ASN.1's complexities as the MIB

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have helped anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major flaw with the path we did adopt. There is no incentive to spend resources to get there. No matter how elegant it is technically, without a be

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have helped anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major flaw with the path we did adopt. There is no incentive to spend resources to get there. Indeed

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have >> helped >> anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major >> flaw >> with the path we d

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Perhaps beating a horse that has long left the gate, since I'm responding to a note earlier than the one I already responded to... But this issue really needs to be settled carefully, IMO, and the modern renditions about this period of time are typically off the mark: On 10/8/2010 6:47 AM, Ste

Re: US DoD and IPv6

> From: Dave CROCKER > On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> A compatible solution would have been better > The community got ambitious It's interesting that you should say this, because I've always been critical of IPv6 because, IMO, it wasn't _ambitious enough_ - in

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On Oct 12, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Bob Hinden and I chaired a working group that was answering your question > BEFORE > IPv6 was adopted and while there were a number of very different proposals. > > The community chose to drop the work and ignore the issue for 10 or 15 years. >

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The problem is not merely marketing in the sense of messaging. The problem > with each one of the stalled IETF infrastructure upgrades is deployment > deadlock. > > Specifically there is a cycle of ungranted requests. Alice has no incentive > to upgrade her infrastru

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Noel Chiappa wrote: > The lack of market incentives is, IMO, intimately connected to the lack of new > functionality - functionality which would have meant a more ambitious design. IPv6 and Neighbor Discovery were designed so ambitiously that they have so much new functionality. The problem is t

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/12/2010 4:08 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: The community got ambitious It's interesting that you should say this, because I've always been critical of IPv6 because, IMO, it wasn't _ambitious enough_ - I didn't say creative. I didn't say it targeted a new paradigm. I merely meant that it t

RE: US DoD and IPv6

> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER > mailto:d...@dcrocker.net>> wrote: >> On 10/11/2010 8:25 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Without getting into the question of whether your suggestion would have helped anything in terms of transition and interoperability, it shares one major flaw with

Re: US DoD and IPv6

I would hope that a practical benefit of IPv6 would be improved performance as a result of support for large packets. That said, I expect to be disappointed. I had really hoped that IEEE would have made support for jumbo frames an absolute requirement for all gigabit ethernet. But no, its an

Re: US DoD and IPv6

When the big dig was going on in Boston, an entire interchange had to be constructed was used for some years and then torn down again. The cost of the interchange was in the high tens of millions of dollars. On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Perhaps beating a horse that ha

Re: US DoD and IPv6

The original idea seems to have been that IPSEC would be a big enough incentive to upgrade. Since then IPSEC has been separated out and we have discovered that packet layer security is not nearly so useful as transport layer. Back in PARC there was a think called error 33: building research on r

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 2010-10-13 12:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The original idea seems to have been that IPSEC would be a big enough > incentive to upgrade. I've been keeping out of this conversation because I have other things to do, like working on effective technologies for v4/v6 coexistence, but I have to

Re: US DoD and IPv6

On 10/13/2010 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I have to protest at this version of the "IPv6 is more secure" myth. I don't think anybody ever advanced this as a serious technical incentive. I heard the most august Howard Schmidt make a simple and direct claim that it was, a few years ba

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > I would hope that a practical benefit of IPv6 would be improved performance > as a result of support for large packets. That is, like almost all the other ambitiously extended functionality of IPv6, an illusion. > I had really hoped that IEEE would have made support

Re: US DoD and IPv6

Brian E Carpenter wrote: > What was always pointed out is that IPv6 use of IPsec doesn't have to > deal with NAT traversal, which was an issue for IPv4 use of IPsec, It should be noted that IPsec, including AH, works transparently over port restricted IP, including end to end NAT, if a 4B SPI is

Re: US DoD and IPv6

I said that it seems to have been the original marketing pitch, not that it was a good one or that it was going to add security. That was when almost all of us (myself included) were going through our 'cryptography makes everything secure phase'. On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brian E Carpente

Re: Internet Architecture (was US DoD and IPv6)

{'Borrowing' a new, more appropriate Subject: from a private reply...} > From: John C Klensin > What does this say about the IETF and how we make decisions? Does that > need adjusting? Perhaps, but even I shrink from tackling that particular windmill! > while ... recriminations

Re: Internet Architecture (was US DoD and IPv6)

> From: Dave Cridland > So currently, a NAT provides: > - A degree of de-facto firewalling for everyone. > - An immunity to renumbering for enterprises. > - Fully automated network routing for ISPs. > If technologies could be introduced to tackle especially the last two,

US government and IPv6 (was US DoD and IPv6)

not the DoD but maybe of interest Scott http://www.cio.gov/Documents/IPv6MemoFINAL.pdf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

NEW NON-IETF LIST ANNOUNCEMENT IETF Ad Hominem Discussions This group is dedicated to the discussion of the personal flaws of IETF participants. -- Airing of old grievances -- Arguments about who gets credit for what -- Revelation of hidden conflicts of interest / conspiracies

End to end NAT (was Re: US DoD and IPv6)

RJ Atkinson wrote: > It seems so incredibly unlikely that end-to-end connectivity (i.e. > without NAT, NAPT, or other middleboxes) is going to increase in future. Say end-to-end NAT (). Port restricted IP by end-to-end NAT keeps the end-to-end connectivity and effectively extend IPv4 address s

Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

0 22:04:46 -0700 > To: Michel Py > Cc: , Keith Moore , Noel Chiappa > > Subject: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) > > NEW NON-IETF LIST ANNOUNCEMENT > > IETF Ad Hominem Discussions > > This group is dedicated to the discussion of the personal

RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

Fine, remove me. -Original Message- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:02 PM To: rbar...@bbn.com; Michel Py Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Keith Moore; Noel Chiappa Subject: Re: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) Yes, please

RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6) NEW NON-IETF LIST ANNOUNCEMENT IETF Ad Hominem Discussions This group is dedicated to the discussion of the personal flaws of IETF participants. -- Airing of old grievances -- Arguments about who gets credit for what -- Revelation of hidden conflicts

RE: IETF-ad-hominem (Was: Re: US DoD and IPv6)

On Thu Oct 7 07:00:35 2010, Michel Py wrote: Fine, remove me. Yeah! He started it! It's so unfair. I don't even like your stupid mailing list anyway, so there! Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/

  1   2   >