Sorry for posting this comment, I saw the IPv6 Chairs' mail too late.
Christian
--
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Strauf
A DFN project Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Team: [EMAIL PROTECTED
> But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to some user
> behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server, how does v4 deliver,
> without the receiving user having the pain of port forwarding configuration
> on their NAT?
Good point. I experienced that end-users in the Gn
Umm, since folks have decided to perpetuate this thread, I think I'm entitled
to the following disclaimer. Let's see if I can make this sound all legal. :)
My lack of response--in compliance with the chairs' decision to discontinue
this obviously disturbing discussion--shall in no way be construed
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 1:35 AM
Subject: RE: IPv6 adoption behavior
Sorry all these vendors support IPv6 upgrades as part of OS releases: Sun, IBM, HP,
Microsoft, Cisco, Juniper, Windriver, and
others. Yes some router and embedded systems hardware will requi
This is one of my batch replies - but this time it's all on a single
thread. I can't claim that this was deliberate - I went out of town for
what was supposed to be a day trip, and was too ill to return for a
couple of days. When I got back there were several dozen messages in
this thread.
It app
The chairs think that, while this has been an interesting discussion, it's
isn't within the scope of the working group and suggest it be moved
elsewhere. Lets focus our energy on completing the development of the IPv6
protocols and stop debating this issue.
Regards,
Bob Hinden & Brian Haberma
most boxes deployed in the market
today.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Måns Nilsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Lanciani
> Subject: Re: IPv6 adoption behavior
>
>
>
>
> --On
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
>How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
>centralized intermediary?
>
>- Ralph
There is no centralized intermediary. But skype uses other non-NATted
non-firewalled peers to route calls between two NATted FWed endpoints.
The
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> But there is a big difference between using a 3rd party directory,
> and passing data through an intermediary. That is, you might very
> well have end-to-end connectivity, but use a directory to locate
> the other end-point.
Indeed. But the difference is big technically, whi
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:02:39PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> But there is a big difference between using a 3rd party directory, and
> passing data through an intermediary. That is, you might very well have
> end-to-end connectivity, but use a directory to locate the other
> end-point.
Indeed.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:49:04AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to
> > some user behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server,
> > how does v4 deliver, without the receiving user having the pain
> > of port forwa
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
>How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
>centralized intermediary?
>
>- Ralph
There is no centralized intermediary. But skype uses other non-NATted
non-firewalled peers to route calls between two NATted FWed endpoints.
Re
> Tim Chown wrote:
> But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to
> some user behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server,
> how does v4 deliver, without the receiving user having the pain
> of port forwarding configuration on their NAT?
There are several methods today; u
At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
>
>I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
>amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How does Skype provide point-to-point connections
> through NAT without a centralized intermediary?
See inline.
Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being b
How does Skype provide point-to-point connections through NAT without a
centralized intermediary?
- Ralph
At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT apol
>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT is an option people will find
ways to twist application
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>internal network do not notice the failure at all. In the IPv6+firewall
>case the new addresses are provided to the hosts and eventually the old
>addresses time out -- and the internal TCP connection breaks. Ouch.
Not if you have statically assigned IPv6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Benny Amorsen wrote:
> On 2003-10-21 at 14:15, Todd T. Fries wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
> > NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
> > `block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, it is not very interesting for the purposes of
> determining whether IPv6 can _replace_ IPv4+NAT as suggested.
Even IPv4 can replace IPv4+NAT, anything can replace that
mechanism that
On 2003-10-21 at 14:15, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
> NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
> `block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep state' (in the pf terms of
> OpenBSD) and in two rules you have the
I'm sorry to reply late to this, but I can't help but realize that
NAT+IPv4 vs IPv6+firewall can be equivalent in `isolation'. Simply
`block in all' and `pass out on $ext_if keep state' (in the pf terms of
OpenBSD) and in two rules you have the same isolation of a NAT+IPv4 as
you do with IPv6+fire
On 2003-10-21 at 03:16, Michel Py wrote:
> True, but Teredo is both the best friend and the worst enemy of IPv6.
> The best friend because it does indeed enable app developers to develop
> IPv6-only apps before IPv6 is largely deployed at ISPs. The worst enemy
> because if IPv6-only apps work good
On 20 okt 2003, at 6:23, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|I don't see the upgrade costs for regular users. Users are by now
|used to upgrading monthly (if not more often) to plug the latest and
|greatest security holes, so a software upgrade to install IPv6
|functionality somewhere in the next three years or
--On Monday, October 20, 2003 00:23:04 -0400 Dan Lanciani
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I strongly doubt that IPv6 will be available as a software-only upgrade
> for any but the latest equipment. There is just too little incentive for
> vendors (especially ones who have gone out of business :) t
> Eugene M. Kim
> What customers want is to have their needs fulfilled (e.g. to be
> able to play StarCraft online at a LAN party at their houses).
> As long as they get what they want, they are less concerned
> about what technology application developers and ISPs have used
> to implement it. Thus
Christian,
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> The Teredo design is predicated on the idea that we can ship IPv6
> as a software upgrade on the PC. The update can be enabled as part
> of an application development. That is actually quite powerful,
> and does break the chicken-and-egg problem.
True, but
Michel Py wrote:
Eugene M. Kim wrote:
That said, what actually bothers me is the classic chicken-and-egg
problem. Application writers are reluctant to add IPv6 support
because they know that there is little to none of IPv6 infrastructure
(read: ISPs supporting IPv6) out there. ISPs, on the other
> > That said, what actually bothers me is the classic chicken-and-egg
> > problem. Application writers are reluctant to add IPv6 support
> > because they know that there is little to none of IPv6
infrastructure
> > (read: ISPs supporting IPv6) out there. ISPs, on the other hand,
> > are reluctan
> Eugene M. Kim wrote:
> That said, what actually bothers me is the classic chicken-and-egg
> problem. Application writers are reluctant to add IPv6 support
> because they know that there is little to none of IPv6 infrastructure
> (read: ISPs supporting IPv6) out there. ISPs, on the other hand,
>
"Eugene M. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I'm afraid this whole series of argument is somewhat misled. Pardon me
|if the whole IPv6 landscape has changed while I was asleep, but I always
|thought that the main goal of IPv6 is not to replace IPv4, IPv4+NAT, or
|anything that stands well-estab
"Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|There is a reason btw why Microsoft invented Teredo, they where
|running into much too many barriers and hooks when wanting to
|deploy internet-worked gaming for both Xbox and Windows platforms
|where NAT's are the culprit as the hosts don't have global
I'm afraid this whole series of argument is somewhat misled. Pardon me
if the whole IPv6 landscape has changed while I was asleep, but I always
thought that the main goal of IPv6 is not to replace IPv4, IPv4+NAT, or
anything that stands well-established today.
There are some holes that the cur
Dan,
Dan Lanciani wrote:
...
> |> NAT was not as painful as it was supposed to be.
> |> For most users, NAT was empowering. Anyone--even an insignificant
> |> residential
> |> client--could hook up an entire network of their own.
> |
> |But this entire network only enjoys a subset of the capabili
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> I strongly doubt that IPv6 will be available as a
> software-only upgrade for any but the latest equipment. There is just too little
> incentive for vendors (especially ones who have gone out of business :) to
> support "legacy" hardw
"Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|As side note. Outside of the IETF a very coordinated and strong force
|is stating NAT business view should not be propogated with IPv6 adoption
|and NAT does not provide security and has a great cost.
The alleged security feature of NAT makes for a very c
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On 17 okt 2003, at 21:34, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> |So what are you saying?
|
|> I'm saying that IPv6 will be a hard sell since it brings great upgrade
|> costs and offers a reduction in the functionality that people expect
|> and
|> depend on.
|
|
m: Dan Lanciani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 adoption behavior
>
>
> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |On 17 okt 2003, at 6:29, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> |
>
On 17 okt 2003, at 21:34, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|So what are you saying?
I'm saying that IPv6 will be a hard sell since it brings great upgrade
costs and offers a reduction in the functionality that people expect
and
depend on.
I don't see the upgrade costs for regular users. Users are by now used
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On 17 okt 2003, at 6:29, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
|> NAT is stiff competition--and it is the
|> incumbent, so being almost as good is nowhere near good enough.
|> Moreover,
|> a single solution is appealing exactly because it is a single solution.
|>
On 17 okt 2003, at 6:29, Dan Lanciani wrote:
NAT is stiff competition--and it is the
incumbent, so being almost as good is nowhere near good enough.
Moreover,
a single solution is appealing exactly because it is a single solution.
You have to take that into account even if it is irrational.
So w
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> ... Attempting to pigeonhole
|> each aspect of that isolation (and offer limited solutions) encourages a
|> divide-and-sweep-under-the-rug attack.
|
|Recent evidence around the IETF supports this claim, but in the real world
|where NAT
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> ... Attempting to pigeonhole
> each aspect of that isolation (and offer limited solutions) encourages a
> divide-and-sweep-under-the-rug attack.
Recent evidence around the IETF supports this claim, but in the real world
where NAT is seen as the single solution to all the prob
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|>
|> "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|> |That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
|> |most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
|> |constructive to keep them s
At 02:28 PM 16/10/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even
though
> |most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
> |constructive to keep them
Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
> |most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
> |constructive to keep them separate.
>
> I used to believe this, but I recently
"Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I don't think that it is about giving up what you need. With a combined
|v4/v6-capable firewall- and v4-NAT box you could easily achieve the same
|level of isolation of a subnet but without the restrictions for IPv6
|hosts that are forced on v4
"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
|most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
|constructive to keep them separate.
I used to believe this, but I recently came to the realization that isolatio
> Clearly many users care a lot about the isolation and little about the
> functionality that you believe is being limited. Rather than trying to
> convince them that they are wrong for wanting to keep their networks
> running, how about proposing a way to achieve that isolation without
> limiting
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> |NAT isolates customer networks from upstream address policies
> only by severely
> |limiting their functionality.
>
> ... do you really think it is reasonable to
> demand that everyone give up what they need to have what you thin
Michel Py; Mark Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 adoption behavior
>
>
> > My crystal ball is as cloudy as anyone's. But I would
> expect that it
> > is all
> > a matter of economics.
> I very much agree with you on this point. The problem is
On 14 okt 2003, at 19:52, Fred Baker wrote:
IPv4 address exhaustion will never occur.
Yes, it would be interesting to see the justification needed in order
to be assigned the last remaining IPv4 address. :-)
And obviously at some point people are going to stop throwing around
subnets but tunne
> Christian Strauf wrote:
> it will be difficult to convince sales people that there actually
> is something about IPv6 that can be sold as a feature that makes
> it better than IPv4 (if we leave aside IPv4 address exhaustion
> for the moment).
I'm not so sure that's were the problem really is. Sa
> My crystal ball is as cloudy as anyone's. But I would expect that it is all
> a matter of economics.
I very much agree with you on this point. The problem is that right now
it's too hard to sell IPv6 (in the literal sense of the word). I believe
that one of the reasons for this is that some fea
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
|Dan Lanciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> IPv6 offers absolutely nothing as a
|> replacement for NAT's primary function: isolation of the customer network
|> from the (typically business-driven) address policies
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:11:24 -0400 (EDT)
Dan Lanciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IPv6 offers absolutely nothing as a
> replacement for NAT's primary function: isolation of the customer network
> from the (typically business-driven) address policies of the service
> provider(e.g., cost, limits o
Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|Indeed. The only other factor here is that it is not entirely a clean
|substitution,
|as NATs provide an alternative product which is an imperfect substitution.
|The extent
|to which the market, over the past few years, has tended towards NATs despite
|t
At 10:52 AM 14/10/2003 -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
At 09:48 AM 10/14/2003, Michel Py wrote:
In my wildest dreams, 10 years at least; possibly 20 depending on how
good the projections in terms of IPv4 exhaustion are.
Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market adoption of IPv6.
IPv4 a
Fred,
> Fred Baker wrote:
> Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market
> adoption of IPv6.
> IPv4 address exhaustion will never occur. As we approach 100%
> allocation (being now a tad over 60% allocation), the level
> of administrative pushback on a new allocation requests will
>
At 09:48 AM 10/14/2003, Michel Py wrote:
In my wildest dreams, 10 years at least; possibly 20 depending on how good
the projections in terms of IPv4 exhaustion are.
Frankly, it's not about IPv4 exhaustion, it is about market adoption of IPv6.
IPv4 address exhaustion will never occur. As we approa
60 matches
Mail list logo
