> , you really mean the minimum period (or duration) of renumbering,
> or the maximum frequency, discovering the minimum frequency wouldn't be
> an interesting thing to look for ...
Oh, but it would be! What is the minimum frequency of renumbering
that would be required to keep routing functiona
% > - if you have hardcoded address in any of your router/host configs,
% > you will be in trouble (example: IBGP peer settings, /etc/named.conf
% > for zone transfer, packet filtering, anything that is written by
% > numeric IPv6 address).
%
% I agree that if we have hardco
> So, what is usually a one day
> TTL might become a 30 minute TTL for the records to be changed. (That
> is going to require re-signing as well...)
Actually you don't need to resign so long as the TTL stays within
the original ttl value when the record was signed. This proper
> the signing cost consideration really depends on two parameters:
> - how often do we want to renumber
No, not the frequency, the latency. That is, how quickly from the
word "go" do you want to have a change in the set of prefixes be
implemented?
> because of other constraint
Date:Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:14:14 +0900
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| sorry if any of my past draft/presentations/postings/whatever sounded
| like that. i was trying to analyze the minimal possible frequency
| for renumber, s
>On the other hand, saying "no-one will need to renumber more frequently than
>once a month, as we'll always be able to let people keep their old addresses
>that long during a transition" doesn't mean that the renumbering event can be
>allowed take a month to be completed (a transition is usually
Date:Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:27:50 +0900
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| i don't understand what is the point in this sentence... yeah,
Sorry about that, it is a common complaint about my writing, I shall
try to do better.
| for the
> | It all depend on the definition of "rapid".
> | If rapid means every "hours" or every "day", I find it very unlikely.
>You're actually talking about the frequency of renumbering there, rather
>than how quickly a renumbering can be accomplished. Clearly the frequency
>can't be more than once
>Since you need two signatures per address (one on , one on PTR),
>figure on being able to re-sign 1500 addresses per minute per GHz of
>cpu. Renumbering a million-address network would take a bit over 11
>GHz-hours of cpu time just for the dnssec signatures alone.
the signing cost c
> | Can we qualify them with a "frequency indicator," e.g. once
> | in a life-time, once a year, once a month, once a day?
>
> Given that #5 needs to be N times a day (twice as stated), if we can
> handle that one, then we should be able to handle all the others up to
> at least once a day fr
Date:Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:56:29 -0700
From:"Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| But first, let's agree on the scenarios. Do we believe that they are
| realistic?
They look reasonable to me.
| Can we qualify them with a "fre
> > I for one believe that we should assume rapid renumbering as a
feature
> > of IPv6.
>
> great! how does it work? not broad desires, but the devilish details
> please.
This is a perfectly reasonable request. I believe that the correct
answer is "draft the scenarios, plan the technology, dem
> the bottom line is that you cannot renumber more frequently than
> (DNS TTL * 2), so if you set DNS TTL to 1 day, you can only renumber
> every other day.
And this is true no matter what sort of records you are storing your
addresses in.
However, consider a large site using t
these have shipped, the issue will
> be moot.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Austein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:00 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Draft Minutes for IPng In
Rob,
Can you give us an idea of when the report will be out?
p.s. is deployed too fyi.
thanks
/jim
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Rob Austein wrote:
> The basic problem is that neither the IPv6 community nor the DNS
> community has reached a clear consensus on whether the extra features
> of A6 o
>>I for one believe that we should assume rapid renumbering as a feature
>>of IPv6. The argument for that is the classic "fire escape" analogy. If
>>you don't practice frequent exercises, you find one the day of the
>>actual fire that a clutter of boxes blocks the escape. If we want to be
>>able t
Date:Mon, 11 Jun 2001 19:58:16 -0700
From:Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010611193607.02281c38@jurassic>
| It all depend on the definition of "rapid".
| If rapid means every "hours" or every "day", I find it very unlikely.
You're actua
At 06:47 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>I for one believe that we should assume rapid renumbering as a feature
>of IPv6. The argument for that is the classic "fire escape" analogy. If
>you don't practice frequent exercises, you find one the day of the
>actual fire that a clutter of
> I for one believe that we should assume rapid renumbering as a feature
> of IPv6.
great! how does it work? not broad desires, but the devilish details
please.
as i participated in what was possibly the largest renumbering exercise
ever conducted O(10^4) *sites*, many of them non-trivial and
ue will
be moot.
-- Christian Huitema
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Austein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Draft Minutes for IPng Interim Meeting
>
> The basic problem is that neither the IPv6 community
The basic problem is that neither the IPv6 community nor the DNS
community has reached a clear consensus on whether the extra features
of A6 over are worth the extra cost. That's not a euphemism for
"have decided that they're not", I really mean that we have people
advocating each side in ea
: Thursday, June 07, 2001 5:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Draft Minutes for IPng Interim Meeting
The draft minutes and most of the presentation materials from last weeks
interim IPng working group meeting can be found at:
http://playground.sun.com/ipng/meetings.html
Please send corre
> > I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6
>
> may i suggest that it might be more productive to discuss the engineering
> need (or not) for it, and stick to principles not personalities?
principles will be easier once we see a draft for sure. comment on
personalities was
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:30:36 +0900,
> Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> You discovered that we have been working with Sun to bring up an IPv6
>> version of the IPng w.g. web pages. It is a new machine and the content
>> had not yet been synchronized. Once this
Date:Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:24:42 -0700
From:Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| we NEED both, and, imiho, routing far more than rapid renumbering. but,
| in reality we seem to HAVE neither.
I agree.
Which is why I wonder at why you're
>> e.g. in the absense of rapid renumbering and gse or other non-v4 routing,
>> what need is sufficiently important to justify a6?
> Unless something happened to routing I'm not aware of (which is
> certainly possible), we still need rapid renumbering.
we NEED both, and, imiho, routing far more t
Date:Sat, 09 Jun 2001 08:57:28 -0700
From:Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| e.g. in the absense of rapid renumbering and gse or other non-v4 routing,
| what need is sufficiently important to justify a6?
Unless something happened to
s.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Jim Bound
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Draft Minutes for IPng Interim Meeting
> I challenge any notio
> I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6
may i suggest that it might be more productive to discuss the engineering
need (or not) for it, and stick to principles not personalities?
e.g. in the absense of rapid renumbering and gse or other non-v4 routing,
what need is sufficien
domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Bound
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Matt Crawford
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Draft M
Matt,
I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6 but at the
meeting it was made clear to several of my questions that any input from
any directorate will have discussion and technical analysis by the WG once
the work is presented from the DNS directorate. So I let it go for now.
So
>Tatuya, Itojun,
>You discovered that we have been working with Sun to bring up an IPv6
>version of the IPng w.g. web pages. It is a new machine and the content
>had not yet been synchronized. Once this was done, we were going to
>announce it.
i see, no problem (and it is a great ef
Matt,
>I suggest that discussion of DNS, which was not on the advance
>agenda, be considered not to have taken place. Some people with
>informed viewpoints were not present to correct various misstatements
>which, as far as the minutes show, went unchallenged.
It it's in the minutes it must hav
I suggest that discussion of DNS, which was not on the advance
agenda, be considered not to have taken place. Some people with
informed viewpoints were not present to correct various misstatements
which, as far as the minutes show, went unchallenged.
-
Tatuya, Itojun,
You discovered that we have been working with Sun to bring up an IPv6
version of the IPng w.g. web pages. It is a new machine and the content
had not yet been synchronized. Once this was done, we were going to
announce it.
It will be easy to have some special IPv6 only reac
>> The draft minutes and most of the presentation materials from last weeks
>> interim IPng working group meeting can be found at:
>>http://playground.sun.com/ipng/meetings.html
>> Please send corrections and updates to me.
>I couldn't see it. (probably due to lack of a link to the file...?)
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 17:39:58 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The draft minutes and most of the presentation materials from last weeks
> interim IPng working group meeting can be found at:
>http://playground.sun.com/ipng/meetings.html
> Please send corrections and
The draft minutes and most of the presentation materials from last weeks
interim IPng working group meeting can be found at:
http://playground.sun.com/ipng/meetings.html
Please send corrections and updates to me.
Thanks,
Bob
-
38 matches
Mail list logo
