Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|--On søndag, november 10, 2002 15:25:56 -0500 Dan Lanciani
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> As long as we are stuck with a totally non-scalable address allocation
|> system (remember, provider-based aggregated addressing consumes address
|> spac
Hi All,
Maybe, but I think most Network administrators understand that using
guess-what-I-hijacked addresses is risky. Instead I bet you'll see them
rolling their own NATv6 solutions. It's lot easier for us v4-ish
old-timers to understand than some of what I've read here today :-)
-JB-
M
> Network administrators want private (read: not publicly routable)
> addresses.
a) they are not the same thing
b) I also maintain that this is not really what network administrators
want. they may equate what they want to this, but see a.
Keith
---
Margaret,
> But, why make them inherently private, non-routable
> addresses? If we come up with a reasonable way to
> allocate globally-unique, provider-independent
> addresses, is there a reason to require that they
> be non-globally-routable?
Network administrators want private (read: not publi
Hi Brian,
> Welcome to NATv6.
It's our job to stop that happening.
I agree, and I actually consider our job to be even bigger
than this...
We need to create the technologies and policies that will enable a
globally-addressable, "flat" IPv6 Internet.
We need to understand and document how a
> > > > > I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
> > > > > private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
> > > > > administrative boundaries...
> > > >
> > > > we need the ability to assign global prefixes to sites that aren't
> > > > directly connec
n
> Cc: IPng
> Subject: Re: Address allocation schemes (Re: Naming and site-local)
>
>
> > I think NATv6 is inevitable, because some site policy makers will
> > demand it.
>
> which is why we need to make it very c
> Okay.
>
> But, why make them inherently private, non-routable addresses?
> If we come up with a reasonable way to allocate globally-unique,
> provider-independent addresses, is there a reason to require
> that they be non-globally-routable?
those would be okay for my purposes. because I see gl
> Er, but I use global addresses every day on good ol' IPv4,
> within my employer's internal network, and they work just
> fine when external connectivity is broken. I see no advantage
> in local addresses here.
Same here for me. I see not advantage at all and lots of pain.
/jim
---
Harald,
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> What would be the difference between this and the good
>> old "8K DFZ", except one more digit and that ISPs could
>> get a block matching their size instead of what used to
>> be called a TLA?
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Apart from not having any administrati
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
> > > > private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
> > > > administrative boundaries...
> > >
> > > we need the ability to assign global prefixes to sites that
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
> > private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
> > administrative boundaries...
>
> we need the ability to assign global prefixes to sites that aren't
> directly co
> > > I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
> > > private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
> > > administrative boundaries...
> >
> > we need the ability to assign global prefixes to sites that aren't
> > directly connected to the public Intern
> I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
> private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
> administrative boundaries...
we need the ability to assign global prefixes to sites that aren't
directly connected to the public Internet, even though they
> Do you meant to imply that a separate block of addresses should be
> set aside for non-globally-routable globally-unique addresses?
yes.
> I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
> private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
> administrative boun
Do you meant to imply that a separate block of addresses should be
set aside for non-globally-routable globally-unique addresses?
I'm not sure what we gain by doing that, as opposed to setting aside
private address space from any global prefix by filtering it at
administrative boundaries...
Marg
> As I said before, it seems that everyone agrees that a globally unique
> site-local would be the way to go, but there are two major roadblocks to
> remove on that path:
> - Make sure that site-locals are not globally routable (I posted some
> comments about this earlier)
seems fairly easy. the
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:21:42PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
>
> > Er, but I use global addresses every day on good ol' IPv4, within my
> > employer's internal network, and they work just fine when external
> > connectivity is broken. I see no advantage in local addresses here.
>
> Well, but th
> > > - it seems that it would be advantageous for nodes within the site to
> > > use sitelocals whenever possible, especially if your global
> > > connection is via flaky connection.
> >
> > Indeed, but this is the dilemma between preference for globals to avoid the
> > site-local scoping "h
> Those who are possessive are those who run services of one
> kind or another.
I think this is a bit too specific - until we produce a good way of
doing renumbering, any site with more than a few hosts has good reason
to want its addresses to be stable, whether or not it thinks it
is running 'se
> I think NATv6 is inevitable, because some site policy makers will demand
> it.
which is why we need to make it very clear that NAT is not acceptable
in IPv6.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
Tim Chown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
> >
> > Why should it be a problem?
> >
> > - it seems that it would be advantageous for nodes within the site to
> > use sitelocals whenever possible, especially if your global
> > connection is via flaky conn
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> But, what I don't understand is how the use of
> overlapping site-local addresses on globally-attached
> networks is any better than NAT.
It's not as bad (does not break apps that embed port numbers in the
payload, for example) but this is an irrelevant argument: it s
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> David Conrad wrote:
> > > my personal opinion is that the only people who feel any possessive
> > > instinct towards 2002:d90d:1cca:2:210:dcff:fe5a:f1fd are the people who
> > > have to reconfigure other stuff when it changes.
> >
> > Or the people who are aff
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
>
> Why should it be a problem?
>
> - it seems that it would be advantageous for nodes within the site to
> use sitelocals whenever possible, especially if your global
> connection is via flaky connection.
Indeed, but this is the
I understand the theoretical issue, but is this a real-life issue?
How many huge non-globally-connected IP networks will ever need to
join the Internet?
Margaret
At 09:25 AM 11/12/02, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:07:03PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> So, why not simply de
> From: Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think a site getting global connectivity would find it hard to migrate
> instantly from site-locals to globals. The suggestion to prefer globals
> over site locals in the default address selection spec, along with Brian's
> suggested text a couple of mai
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:07:03PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> So, why not simply deprecate SL for sites that have at least one
> global prefix? Or am I too simple minded?
I think a site getting global connectivity would find it hard to migrate
instantly from site-locals to globals. The
t;
> Gary
>
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@sunroof.eng.sun.com on 11/12/2002
> 06:23:56 AM
>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:IPng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject:Re: A
I am also of this simple mind.
/jim
[In matters of style, swim with the currentsin matters of principle,
stand like a rock. - Thomas Jefferson]
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http
> But, what I don't understand is how the use of overlapping
> site-local addresses on globally-attached networks is any
> better than NAT.
It is not. Same problems that NAT has. And loss of e2e: apps,
security, and mobility for those who only have those SLs. Not good.
As a note industry wi
OTECTED]>@sunroof.eng.sun.com on 11/12/2002
06:23:56 AM
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: IPng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Re: Address allocation schemes (Re: Naming and site-local)
Hi Brian,
>So, why not simply deprecat
Hi Brian,
So, why not simply deprecate SL for sites that have at least one
global prefix? Or am I too simple minded?
If you are too simple minded, then I am right there with you.
My making this exact suggestion is what started the 500+ message
mail storm two weeks ago that has received so muc
below...
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> > > Welcome to NATv6.
> >
> >It's our job to stop that happening.
>
> I agree, and I actually consider our job to be even bigger
> than this...
>
> We need to create the technologies and policies that will enable a
> globally-addressable, "f
Hi Tim,
Our "job" is to provide a well-engineered alternative that the
market will demand.
Excellent point, and well put.
Margaret
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> David Conrad wrote:
> >
> > Welcome to NATv6.
>
> It's our job to stop that happening.
>
> Also, the vast majority of Internet users are not in the least
> possessive about their IP address; it's different every time they
> con
David Conrad wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 11/11/02 9:15 AM, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > my personal opinion is that the only people who feel any possessive
> > instinct towards 2002:d90d:1cca:2:210:dcff:fe5a:f1fd are the people who
> > have to reconfigure other stuff when it
--On mandag, november 11, 2002 15:48:17 -0800 Michel Py
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
metro addressing?
You can have a quick look at this, WIP.
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt
hey - if Bergen gets a /32, Trondheim should get one too :-)
but th
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> metro addressing?
You can have a quick look at this, WIP.
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt
> btw, my current naive prediction of the way the
> Internet will evolve is that unless new invention
> occurs, the default-free zone will eventually b
Hi,
On 11/11/02 9:15 AM, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my personal opinion is that the only people who feel any possessive
> instinct towards 2002:d90d:1cca:2:210:dcff:fe5a:f1fd are the people who
> have to reconfigure other stuff when it changes.
Or the people who ar
--On mandag, november 11, 2002 09:02:54 -0800 Michael Thomas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this probably boils down to something
completely non-technical: do people view IP
addresses as "addresses" ala street addresses,
etc, or do they view them as possessions like
(now) phone numbers and
41 matches
Mail list logo
