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 together multiple separate networks. Of course you can have the same
addresses on the different networks. Nothing new
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
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Sorry I don't see the problem yet. I wouldn't design a solution nor discuss its
details.
Designing the future makes me suffer.
Then, you are probably on a wrong mailing list.
Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:25 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Why one Internet?
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
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
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
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
IETF IPv6 working group
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
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 when necessary, then another
one etc.
We can have as many Internets as we need, all different.
...
in the
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
the Internet is a means to communicate.
and the market drives for most effective/efficient/economical communication
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
Lixia,
The original note says I think it is possible to locate the node we need.
So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to deal
with the fact that addresses would be ambiguous. Since we have 15 years
experience of the pain caused by ambiguous addresses, and a
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:31:04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Your original note also says I am not here to discuss these details.
Sorry,
but in the IETF it's *exactly* the details that we must discuss; that's
our
job. We've been doing so since 1992 to my personal knowledge.
Regards
I am here to question:
My question is why IPv6 is the end of the road.
We shouldn't give all the responsibility to a few persons.
We should not be dependent on their decisions.
If the transition to a complete IPv6 network is not possible, then we can
add a new Internet. It can be IPv4, IPv6, or
Pars,
This discussion is out of scope for the ipv6@ietf.org mailing list. Please
take it elsewhere.
Bob Ole
6man w.g. Chairs
On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
I am here to question:
My question is why IPv6 is the end of the road.
We shouldn't give all the
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 it is possible to locate the node we need.
So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to
deal
with the fact that addresses would be
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
Hi Brian,
I was not questioning about connectivity (or divide Internet).
I was just looking for an explanation of how the proposal could be MORE
effective *and* more economical.
Lixia
On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lixia,
The original note says I think it is
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 it is possible to locate the node we
need.
So, the idea is apparently not to divide the
Why *not* one Internet?
If someone wants to create multiple ones (or, more accurately, break the
existing one into multiple pieces), it seems incumbent on them to make a solid
case for doing so. That is, to show a specific problem, and a technical case
why a drastic architectural change is
If we created the two or three Internets, then linked them together by
physical
network nodes or layer 3 devices, would the multiple Internets revert to
one?
--
__
Mwendwa Kivuva
For
Business Development
Transworld Computer Channels
twitter.com/lordmwesh
If we created the two or three Internets, then linked them together by
physical
network nodes or layer 3 devices, would the multiple Internets revert to
one?
10rdmwesh
--
__
Mwendwa Kivuva
For
Business Development
Transworld Computer Channels
twitter.com/lordmwesh
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 it is
Hello,
yes, address translator and higher level gateways are tools to cope with
the difficulties caused by the address shortage, but
it is difficult to scale these tools
and we can rid of them with the large scale deployment of IPv6 based
Internet.
Less energy consumption, clearer
Hi Pars,
I propose have a network of Internets:
Internet1
Internet2
Internet3
...
Interntet_n
In Internet 1 and 2 we may have two nodes with the same address.
The goal is to route the packet to the right Internet. I don't think it is
impossible.
You should talk to Jos Vrancken. He
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)'
:-)
cheers
Carlos
On 4/10/12 10:24 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
Hi,
In my opinion, we can add
Yes, that was also my reaction. Why one Internet? Because Internet means tying
together multiple separate networks. Of course you can have the same addresses
on the different networks. Nothing new there either. That's why we have NATs,
NAPTs, and IPv6 NPTs.
No one is forcing an ISP
27 matches
Mail list logo
