:54 PM
*To:* Pars Mutaf
*Cc:* ipv6@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: Why one Internet?
** **
Wasn't this what the Internet was supposed to be? I'm tempted to ask how
old you are, but I don't want to be rude.
As the Monty Python would put it: 'You see, the key is in the name - Inter
- net(work
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Mohacsi Janos moha...@niif.hu wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Pars Mutaf wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com wrote:
Yes, that was also my reaction. Why one Internet? Because Internet
means tying
Hi,
In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
one etc.
We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
We just need a *network of Internets*.
The first (current) Internet is an IPv4 Internet.
The second Internet can be an IPv4 Internet too. In this case
Why me?
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
one etc.
We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
...
in the words of vince perriello, send code
randy
No sir not questioning is being the nut case. Sorry.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Why me?
because you are the nut case who proposed it
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
In my opinion, we can add one more Internet
your picture of network of
Internets would be more effective and economical (than what we have now)
Lixia
On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hi,
In my opinion, we can add one more Internet when necessary, then another
one etc.
We can have as many Internets as we need, all
systems (there are tradeoffs between the adjectives)
wonder if you could help explain how your picture of network of
Internets would be more effective and economical (than what we have now)
Lixia
On Apr 10, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hi,
In my opinion, we can add one more
I am not a troll I worked on IPv6 and MANET for longtime.
Now I choose to wake up and question.
Pars
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer ha...@jauu.net wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:31:04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Your original note also says I am not here to discuss
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Pars Mutaf pars.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Lixia,
The original note says I think
done (Section 1),
-Abstract solution done,
-There is also some new discussion on bootstrapping IKE using PIQ.
Comments are welcome to the int-area ML.
Thanks
pars mutaf
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
- how many hops you can make w/ a packet sized 1280?
Maybe I'm missing something, but the attacker wouldn't
rather send millions of *very small* packets (to keep the
routers busy) instead sending elephants??
My 0.02 cents
pars
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 19:05 +0100, Pars Mutaf wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 16:43 +0100, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
Hello Pars,
A few thoughts...
Hello thanks.
On 12Feb 2007, at 2:35 PM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
The problems that you describe hardly seem related to server-less
,
pars mutaf
-- Christian Huitema
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Hello,
Thanks much for all good questions. Please see below:
Selon Manfredi, Albert E [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-Original Message-
From: Pars Mutaf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear all,
Quick reminder: the problem that I'm bringing to your
attention is:
http://www.ietf.org
are not limited to link-local scope. But this needs more
investigation.
Looking forward to your suggestions.
Thanks,
pars mutaf
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:22 +0100, Pars MUTAF wrote:
I would like to bring a new problem statement draft to your
attention (1 page). Until it appears in the I-D rep
Selon Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Firstly, the multicast name resolution idea that started
with ZEROCONF (if I'm correct), has the potential to find
many new and popular applications.
Dear AD, chairs, folks;
I would like to bring a new problem statement draft to your
attention (1 page
Selon Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pars,
Various possible DNS designs are possible. However,
I want to go back to your suggestion that multicasting
will cause significant inefficiencies when running over
WiMax and 802.16.
Thank you very much for this mail. Please see below:
It might,
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 17:56 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 17:14, Pars Mutaf a écrit :
So, the proposal is that if the hash collides for different names,
then johnsmith.local must rename himself, right?
Right. Please let me know if you see a problem
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:53 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
My question to Paul Vixie:
you'll also have to cope with networks that aren't using EUI64 or for that
matter aren't using a 64-bit netmask.
Is this an important limitation? (I'm asking the question)
i think so, but it's a
Hi all,
Thank you all for your comments!
Alex and Julien: thanks for clarifications on 16ng.
Stephane and Brian Carpenter: I used the term .local with
no particular reason. If recent advances showed that it is
unnecessary. That's OK for me. I'm not even sure if my
proposal needs to be local. I
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:40 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that dot-local DNS (also called multicast DNS) will be
even more useful in the future. However, I suspect that there is
a problem. For example, in WiMax, a cellular standard, nodes
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 03:30:26PM +0100,
Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 81 lines which said:
I used the term .local with no particular reason. If recent advances
showed that it is unnecessary
Code (simple, just to show the principle, and README):
http://www.freewebs.com/pmutaf/humid_code.tgz
Motivations:
http://www.freewebs.com/pmutaf/draft-mutaf-ipv6humid-02.txt
Thanks,
pars
(ps: sensor folks are also interested.)
Selon Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
MaxRtrAdvInterval
The maximum time allowed between sending
unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from
the interface, in seconds. MUST be
Selon Soliman, Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. Accept the issue: Increase the value of the MaxRtrAdvInterval. It
seems that in order to do this in a backward compatible way, we can't
increase it beyond 2999 seconds. That's because the default value for
the AdvDefaultLifetime is 3 *
Hi folks (sorry for popping up),
FYI, based on comments I have very much simplified
the humid draft. You can find it here until it
appears in the I-D rep.:
http://www.freewebs.com/pmutaf/draft-mutaf-ipv6humid-02.txt
Usage scenario is ad-hoc network now.
All references to infrastructure DNS,
broken, so all references to
remote use need to go.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Pars Mutaf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:13 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: humid IPv6 addresses]
Dear IPv6,
FYI, I have received the following
Queries need L2 multicast for name resolution
UIMS).
With humid, there is also the possibility of
searching a mobile host in multiple subnets.
Regards,
pars
---BeginMessage---
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:54:01PM +0200,
Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 31 lines which said
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 20:02 +0200, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hello,
The issue was raised again in 16ng, so I'm trying to help
moving forward on this issue. (I dropped out my dormant mode
reliability concerns for future work, but I hope this has
complemented the discussion.)
I have a couple
the same through filtering
(i.e. without modifying the AR impl.), then you need to filter the RA before
the host is paged.
(Otherwise the BS wakes up the MH, before it receives the RA.)
Greets,
pars
jak
- Original Message -
From: Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James
-
From: Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery
Selon James Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why can't the BS simply
of your mail is for me.
You were suggesting IETF to recommend RA filtering by the BSs.
pars
jak
- Original Message -
From: Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 20
Message-
From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:03 PM
To: Pars MUTAF
Cc: Erik Nordmark; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery
So here's a counter example.
Suppose there is an IP based but wireless
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 12:07 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Pars Mutaf wrote:
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 23:42 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hello,
I have updated my HUMID internet draft entitled:
Human-regenerable IPv6 interface identifiers and addresses
Until
.
jak
- Original Message -
From: Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Basavaraj Patil [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; ext
Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal to change aspects
Hello,
I have updated my HUMID internet draft entitled:
Human-regenerable IPv6 interface identifiers and addresses
Until it appears at the IETF site, you can find it at the
following address if you're interested:
http://www.freewebs.com/pmutaf/draft-mutaf-ipv6humid-01.txt
I would very much
doesn't agree). Because the problem is too
difficult to solve before we actually see it.
Thanks,
pars
Selon Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 08:25 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks. But I still believe that a host should
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 21:48 -0700, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
Hello,
I couldn't understand why NUD is the responsibility of IP,
but the other is not.
So, why NUD isn't the link-layer's responsibility?
= Because of two reasons:
- Some link layers fon't have this
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 02:29 -0700, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
Thanks. But I still believe that a host should be able to test
if it is reachable in dormant mode (reachable, or reachable within
reasonable delay). This is good for dormant mode security.
= I'm not sure that you appreciate
Hello,
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:45 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
RAs aren't used for reachability we have
ND/NUD for that.
NUD (RS-RA) becomes useless when the host is in dormant mode and
reachable via a paging channel.
To initiate NUD, the host needs to wake up and send RS. The router's
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 09:35 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
RAs aren't used for reachability we have
ND/NUD for that.
Once again, NUD (as I understand it, and the way it is defined in
2461) is not based on RS/RA exchanges. It is based on NS/NA
exchanges. Thus, I do not at all understand the
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 08:22 -0700, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
I wasn't assuming this.
NUD checks the traffic channel in both directions. That's OK.
But after the NUD procedure, the host enters dormant mode and
becomes reachable via another channel: the paging channel that
wasn't
Hello,
In addition to the previous remarks:
Imagine that you have a friend who calls you to
check if you are still reachable, say every
15 minutes. And imagine that you don't need to
answer!
The periodic RAs are that friend.
This is frankly excellent. They periodically
simulate an
Hi Raj,
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 15:45 -0500, Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello Pars,
Response inline:
On 8/10/06 12:38 PM, ext Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Selon Basavaraj Patil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Inline:
On 8/10/06 8:52 AM, ext Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Selon Basavaraj Patil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Inline:
On 8/10/06 8:52 AM, ext Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm still trying to understand the problem :-)
Unless I missed an episode, the context is
connection-oriented cellular networks under IP
(whatever that means
Hello,
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:37 +0200, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
The I-D:
draft-madanapalli-ipv6-periodic-rtr-advts-00.txt
proposes several changes to ND procedures and parameters.
= I strongly object not about the document itself but about
Hello,
From your draft:
|Routers that implement the current recommendations would send the
|periodic multicast router advertisements every 30 minutes, which can
|be a significant problem in mobile/cellular network environments.
Why do you think 1 multicast RA per 30 minutes is a
).
I will also specify which hash function to use etc.
Thanks!
Regards,
pars
Regards,
Brian
On Jul 11, 2006, at 5:17, Pars Mutaf wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 17:04 -0700, Peter Sherbin wrote:
Pars,
Why would you need IETF to tell you which human name format to use.
Technically
whatever we want. However:
If my host configures an interface ID from 64bithash(pars mutaf),
but someone tries to reach me at 64bithash(parsmutaf),
this won't work.. A standard human name format is needed.
(is this off-topic?)
pars
Thanks,
Peter
--- Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Hello,
Selon John Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Reading RFC 4291, I am not 100% clear on the format for link-local
addresses. In some places the document specifies fe80::/10, which I
read as the first ten bits must be 1110 10, the remaining 54 bits
can be anything, up to the /64 bit
Hello,
For example, we are in the same campus. The campus is covered
by a single subnet with several wireless access points. I need
to call you. But there is a problem and I can't get the IPv6 address
of your cellular phone (DNS, or MIPv6 home agent failure).
But, I suspect
that you are
, similarly
to MANET.
How to encode a human name into an IPv6 address?
This kind of name resolution is interesting
because it is truly stateless and end-to-end.
(and impossible with IPv4)
Thank you.
pars
On 2006/06/12, at 17:35, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 17:18 +0900
/draft-mutaf-ipv6humid-00.txt
I would very much appreciate your comments, if any.
Regards,
Pars Mutaf
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:35 +0200, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hello,
Is there a standard way of constructing
an interface ID from human name?
I would like to configure an interface ID
hash
(ParsMutaf| 1) or
subnetprefix | hash(ParsMutaf| 2)
Is there a standard way of doing this?
For example there should be space between
first and last name? etc.
Any comments? Pointers? Thank you.
Regards,
Pars Mutaf
IETF IPv6
54 matches
Mail list logo
