> For the sake of the argument, what would it take if you did not have
MSN
> Messenger (short of re-creating a centralized service that pretty much
> implements the same functions)? I mean, the presence detection is
> somehow like a dynamic DNS mechanism: when the app comes up it
registers
> with s
Christian,
> Christian Huitema wrote:
> Threedegrees is however tied to MSN Messenger,
> which uses a central service to manage the
> presence application.
For the sake of the argument, what would it take if you did not have MSN
Messenger (short of re-creating a centralized service that pretty m
> There is not any. Most p2p software relies on some kind of
> (de)centralized infrastructure. Napster did, it was centralized,
that's
> how they shut it down. Even threedegrees does; even if you remove the
> Teredo infrastructure there still is a centralized component: where is
> the list of rooms
Tony,
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Note that p2p is not that unfriendly as of now. I just had a
>> look at one of the pieces of p2p I use at home; there are some
>< ^^^
>> 230k users on the server I connect to,
>> ^^
> Tony Hain wrote:
> And the inco
Michel Py wrote:
> Note that p2p is not that unfriendly as of now. I just had a look at one
> of the pieces of p2p I use at home; there are some 230k users on the
^^^
> server I connect to,
^^
And the inconsistency with that statement is ???
> plus a load of other ones wi
> Tony Hain wrote:
> The market doesn't pick technology for technologies sake, it
> picks tools that solve an acute problem.
Indeed.
> This means that nat will be with us until it becomes part of
> the problem that needs solving. Consumer friendly p2p is the
> obvious catalyst, so the answer to y
I now have time to catch up transiting back & forth to jury duty for the
next few weeks.
On Monday, September 22, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Pekka,
>
> I think there is an overarching issue about deployment/transition
> that relates to the NAT thing;
> providing a new service/feature/capability by onl
--On Sunday, September 28, 2003 19:17:23 -0700 Michel Py
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you care giving concrete examples of what it empowers you to do,
> which is, what can't I do with my residential setup and you can because
> you have been empowered?
* I can run servers without firewall
Måns,
> Måns Nilsson wrote:
> I have a small-business-grade DSL at home, costing around
> 5 times as much as consumer (and that is with the discaount!),
Sounds about right with a discount.
> but I get a /27 and RFC2317 style delegation. It is bliss,
> but it should not be exceptional, it should
--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 08:41:14 -0700 Michel Py
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I had been living in bliss
>
> A too common problem within the IETF. Maybe it would be useful for some
> people here to actually get out in the real world.
We more typically escape to bliss, at a cost, be
Michel,
If not indiscrete, how many IPv4 addresses and how much $$$ are we
talking about? Given the number of hosts I have on my home setup (I need
a /27) the only realistic option I have to run NAT-free is to bring in a
T1 (as no reliable residential broadband provider is willing to give me
a /27
Hi All,
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:59:13 -0700
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it will be driven by vendors shipping products with applications
> that make good of IPv6 and that people want to run. This will give the
> home router vendors some real incentive to add IPv6 support.
Eliot,
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> DING DING IPv4-0-Meter just went off.
> Why is this an issue in v6-land, assuming you can get a v6
> consumer networking device?
My point exactly. Can Cisco/Linksys deliver a $40 IPv6 consumer device?
:-D
Hey, I'd fork out the $40 just to see it if it comes with T
Bob,
> Bob Hinden wrote:
> I figured it would be hypocritical for me to run NAT at home
> and work on IPv6 in the IETF
I don't think so. I am not ashamed of running IPv4 NAT at home and
working on IPv6; it's a matter of money.
> so I was willing to pay a bit more money.
If not indiscrete, how m
Thomas,
It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
home router that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist. The market
landscape has shifted dramatically. All home routers come with NAT
builtin and the functionality
On woensdag, sep 24, 2003, at 13:31 Europe/Amsterdam, Thomas Narten
wrote:
It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
home router that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist. The market
landscape has shifted dramati
Thomas Narten wrote:
To get a real router would seem
to cost a lot more (i.e, low hundreds of $$). It has been suggested
that if I want a cheap router, I should go to eBay and by a used
low-end Cisco. Kind of shows how bad the situation actually is.
Maybe salvage a low-end PC with multiple NICs a
> It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
> home router that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
> unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist. The market
> landscape has shifted dramatically. All home routers come with NAT
> builtin and the functionality
DING DING IPv4-0-Meter just went off.
Why is this an issue in v6-land, assuming you can get a v6 consumer
networking device?
Eliot
Michel Py wrote:
Thomas,
Thomas Narten wrote:
If you are residential user, try finding a home router
that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
unfortu
Thomas,
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> If you are residential user, try finding a home router
> that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
> unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist.
The $40 router never existed. Get real, there is no way to support Joe
Blow configuring a router if it sel
Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
> standpoint: for residential use (especially with
> broadband) it is simply impossible to have an
> argument about the evils of NAT.
It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
hom
I don't think it has been mentioned as a reason why NAT took off, but the other thing
that may need to be provided is the "default "security" with no configuration" that
these end users believe these NATting (or NATting + firewall) products provide.
Of course, tight default security policies a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that
> > NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity,
> > working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside enti
DHCPv6 prefix delegation,
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-04.txt, provides this
capability. Interoperability among several implementations has been
demonstrated at TAHI and Connectathon.
- Ralph
At 03:31 AM 9/24/2003 +0200, Benny Amorsen wrote:
In order to reach the same ease of conf
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-04.txt
The doc has been sent to the IESG for publication.
- Ralph
At 10:12 PM 9/23/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the
> > ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 pr
Keith Moore wrote:
maybe I'm the one missing something. where is the protocol for this defined?
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-03.txt
Eliot
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative R
> > but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the
> > ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 prefix) is
> > a significant missing piece for IPv6.
>
> Why is this "missing"? Isn't this what prefix-delegation does?
maybe I'm the one missing something. wh
Keith Moore wrote:
but I strongly agree that autoconfiguration of routers (including the
ability of a router to ask its upstream routers for a /64 prefix) is
a significant missing piece for IPv6.
Why is this "missing"? Isn't this what prefix-delegation does?
Eliot
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 03:31:23 +0200
Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that
> NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity,
> working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside entities
> such
One thing that has not been mentioned so far in the discussion is that
NAT is empowering many users. It allows them to share connectivity,
working around draconian policies imposed on them by outside entities
such as ISP's. With NAT, any single address can now give access to a
whole network, and it
> Keith Moore writes:
> > > From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
> > > standpoint: for residential use (especially with
> > > broadband) it is simply impossible to have an
> > > argument about the evils of NAT.
> >
> > that's the stupidest thing that's been said here in a long time.
As a datapoint, it might be worth reading the comments posted to slashdot relating to
this story
End Of the Line for SpeakFreely: NATed to Death
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/20/1556253&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=185&tid=95
(And yes, I got sucked into it, and ended up looking like I'd j
Keith Moore writes:
> > From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
> > standpoint: for residential use (especially with
> > broadband) it is simply impossible to have an
> > argument about the evils of NAT.
>
> that's the stupidest thing that's been said here in a long time.
>
> NATs a
> well use v6 through the NAT :-) so you keep on friendly terms with the folks
> who think NAT is a security "must have" and still get to give all real users
> an individual IP address.
sort of seems like a contradiction - either you have the NAT to provide
security or you use the same address fo
>
> > Is it really true that most of the market chose to use NAT
> rather than
> > tunneling or dual-stack for IPv6 transition mechanism?
>
> there is zero truth to that. if you're going to use NAT
> there is (almost)
> no point in using IPv6.
>
well use v6 through the NAT :-) so you keep on frie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On tisdag, sep 23, 2003, at 02:32 Europe/Stockholm, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> I think there is an overarching issue about deployment/transition
> that relates to the NAT thing;
> providing a new service/feature/capability by only adding one box to
> the
September 2003 1:55 PM
To: Ron Lee
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is
bad?]
> Is it really true that most of the market chose to use NAT rather than
> tunneling or dual-stack for IPv6 transition mec
> Is it really true that most of the market chose to use NAT rather than
> tunneling or dual-stack for IPv6 transition mechanism?
there is zero truth to that. if you're going to use NAT there is (almost)
no point in using IPv6.
As a datapoint, it might be worth reading the comments posted to slashdot relating to
this story
End Of the Line for SpeakFreely: NATed to Death
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/20/1556253&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=185&tid=95
(And yes, I got sucked into it, and ended up looking like I'd j
avola
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is bad?]
Hi,
As I sent some thoughts on RFC1918 to the IAB, we had a short personal
discussion with Geoff, and he made a very good question:
"Why did the
> From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
> standpoint: for residential use (especially with
> broadband) it is simply impossible to have an
> argument about the evils of NAT.
that's the stupidest thing that's been said here in a long time.
NATs are at least as harmful in a residential envi
Erik Nordmark writes:
> And NATs are used as a technology as part of providing different
> user visible capabilities such as
> - "connection sharing" from home
>From my SF-centric Nexus-of-the-web-trendiod
standpoint: for residential use (especially with
broadband) it is simply impossible to
Pekka,
I think there is an overarching issue about deployment/transition
that relates to the NAT thing;
providing a new service/feature/capability by only adding one box to
the network is a lot easier sell than for instance
- requring a box in the peer's network
- requring all the routers in t
On donderdag, sep 18, 2003, at 16:30 Europe/Amsterdam, Pekka Savola
wrote:
"Why did the market pick up NATs and run so hard with them despite
their evident complications and technical compromises?"
The short answer is of course: because NAT was easier than either
(a) getting new addresses, or
(
With the indulcence of the working group perhaps a preface to
the question I posed to Pekka might help here, to understand where I
was coming from:...
Why are NATs so prevalent.?
I have this personal hunch that technologists are not natural economists,
and the dynamics of the market leaves the tec
Hi,
As I sent some thoughts on RFC1918 to the IAB, we had a short personal
discussion with Geoff, and he made a very good question:
"Why did the market pick up NATs and run so hard with them despite
their evident complications and technical compromises?"
I made a few observations of my own,
46 matches
Mail list logo
