Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> I thought I made this pretty clear in the portions of my note which you
|> snipped, but I'll try to run through it one more time.
|>
|> -Scalable PI space without distributed routing tables probably requires
|> a full identifier/l
On Sunday 16 October 2005 23:25, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> The issue I have with your description is that you assume that the
> "mapping layers" are actually of similar complexity, and AFAICT
> they are quite different; the shim uses a "re-mapping" layer (which
> remaps the ULIDs to alternative loca
Dan Lanciani wrote:
I thought I made this pretty clear in the portions of my note which you
snipped, but I'll try to run through it one more time.
-Scalable PI space without distributed routing tables probably requires
a full identifier/locator split.
-An identifier/locator split almost certai
David Conrad wrote:
Eliot,
On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
The IETF cannot legislate prefix lengths, but the argument behind
conservation beyond /48 would be utterly silly and demonstrates a
"revenue opportunity", plain and simple.
When multiple /19s and /20s have been all
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:55:39 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Dan Lanciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35
>
[snip]
>
> IPv6 itself does nothing good for (3). PI allocations may
David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
The IETF cannot legislate prefix lengths, but the argument behind
conservation beyond /48 would be utterly silly and demonstrates a
"revenue opportunity", plain and simple.
When multiple /19s and /20s have been allocated and
Eliot,
On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
The IETF cannot legislate prefix lengths, but the argument behind
conservation beyond /48 would be utterly silly and demonstrates a
"revenue opportunity", plain and simple.
When multiple /19s and /20s have been allocated and there are ru
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| (I wrote)
|> Unfortunately, that does not address most of the problems that drive the
|> demand for NAT. The current economic model is:
|>
|> 1) Pay for addresses
|> 2) Pay more for stable addresses
|> 3) Pay much more for portable stable addresses
|>
|>
Hi,
Unfortunately, that does not address most of the problems that drive the
demand for NAT. The current economic model is:
1) Pay for addresses
2) Pay more for stable addresses
3) Pay much more for portable stable addresses
With more address space available, IPv6 may help with (1) if provide
"Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|[snip]
|>
|> IPv6 itself does nothing good for (3). PI allocations may well be available
|> to some set of entities for a while to ease the transition, but that just
|> brings us back to r
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| (I wrote)
|> My concern is that adoption of shim6 will be an impediment to development
|> of a more general locator/identifier separation solution both because the
|> mapping functions might clash and because many will object to changing
|> existing i
...
My concern is that adoption of shim6 will be an impediment to development
of a more general locator/identifier separation solution both because the
mapping functions might clash and because many will object to changing
existing implementations a *second* time for what might be perceived to be
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
|
|> The point of shim6 is to *avoid* the need for PI-like space for
|> multihomed sites, so that we don't do to the IPv6 BGP table what
|> multihoming is doing to the IPv4 BGP table. We need IPv6 to scale
|> v
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The point of shim6 is to *avoid* the need for PI-like space for
multihomed sites, so that we don't do to the IPv6 BGP table what
multihoming is doing to the IPv4 BGP table. We need IPv6 to scale
vastly more than IPv4, so this is
Paul,
We'll always need PI. The Independence part of PI is what people
/really/ want. They don't want multiple-PA (they can do that already
relatively easily). If people can not get globally-unique PI addresses
they will use private PI space and use address translation.
I think enterprise ad
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The point of shim6 is to *avoid* the need for PI-like space for
multihomed sites, so that we don't do to the IPv6 BGP table what
multihoming is doing to the IPv4 BGP table. We need IPv6 to scale
vastly more than IPv4, so this is essential.
The pr
, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ipv6@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35
>
> Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
> >
> >
> > I
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Dear all,
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The
solution that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this
demographic.
Whoa there. The NANO
NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The
solution that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this
demographic.
The ISP community is the primary direct beneficiary of shim6 and will
have to work with their customers to help implement it. If the
operational commu
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:10:27 -0400
> From: John Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], ipv6@ietf.org, [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
>
Dear all,
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The solution
that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this demographic.
Whoa there. The NANOG community (as well as
Doesn't this apply to any orgization that doesn't have its own /32?
In the fullness of time this is the expectation, yes. However its pretty clear
that the approach entails some changes to the protocol stack, and its not going
to be a completely straightforward task. So its a pretty likely ou
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The
solution that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this
demographic.
Whoa there. The NANOG community (as well as other ISP communities) is
hugely affected by shim
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 06:48:25PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 23-sep-2005, at 17:06, David Meyer wrote:
>
> >The IAB has proposed the below BOF for the upcoming NANOG
>
> That's nice, but...
>
> >The purpose of this BOF for the IAB is to solicit operator
> >feedback on the progr
On 23-sep-2005, at 17:06, David Meyer wrote:
The IAB has proposed the below BOF for the upcoming NANOG
That's nice, but...
The purpose of this BOF for the IAB is to solicit operator
feedback on the progress and direction of IPv6 multi-homing work,
particularly as discussed in the IETF, a
Folks,
The IAB has proposed the below BOF for the upcoming NANOG
(please see http://www.nanog.org for information on
NANOG). As mentioned in the description (see below), the
purpose of the BOF is for the IAB to solicit operator
feedback on the progr
26 matches
Mail list logo
