if the ipv6 routing table ever gets as large as the ipv4 routing table is
today (late 2004 if you're going to quote me later), we'll be in deep doo.
--
Paul Vixie
"Nut-uh!"
*WHEN* the ipv6 routing table gets as large as the ipv4 routing table
is today (late 2004, when you quote me later) it won't
On 21 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> if the ipv6 routing table ever gets as large as the ipv4 routing table is
> today (late 2004 if you're going to quote me later), we'll be in deep doo.
s/if/when/
There some hope though that by that time routers will have slightly more
memory and slightly b
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Vicky wrote:
> interesting read at:
> http://qbone.internet2.edu/papers/non-architectural-problems.txt
There is a long history of problems. But Internet2 also shows a success
for Diffserv, namely there is demand for a "worse" effort.
Are a dozen differnt classes useful to a
> what the world is short of is routing table
> slots, each of
> which adds universal cost to the internet for the sole benefit of
> the owner
> of the network thus made reachable.
I see this point made often, and I've never understood it. If carrying a
route only benefits the party that
> >... all oldtimers are skewed. ...
> Here is a possible multi level solution for end sites and non /32
> qualifiers:
> ...
> - Sites that multihome 4 ways or more get a PI /40
> - Large sites with more than X devices get a PI /40 if at least
> (dual|triple)homed to avoid massive renumbering
> It seems easier to try to back-port SCTP's multihoming features to TCP
> somehow than to deploy an entirely new transport protocol. It's
> unfortunate this wasn't addressed at the time IPng was being designed.
this was tried. there was almost going to be a "TCP6" which was capable
of signalli
While the concept of classes has changed, I'm not so sure that I agree with
the complaint here...
Everything I've seen about the multi TLA/SLA concepts always seem to leave
64 bits at the end for the actual host address, so it would be a logical
step at that point to have the ASICs spun so that 6
Thus spake "Barney Wolff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perhaps it is time to replace TCP with SCTP, where multihoming is not
incompatible with PA addressing. If done as a socket shim, so
applications
don't have to be aware of it unless they want to be, it would appear to
solve all of these problems.
How
> Just to introduce a touch of practicality to this discussion, it might
> be worth noting that Cisco and Juniper took the RFC stating that the
> smallest subnet assignments would be a /64 seriously and the ASICs only
> route on 64 bits. I suspect that they influenced the spec in this area as
> ex
Alex,
I am aware of how telcos work in general, and, in some detail in the united
States. I also agree with most of what you said. However, consider
that somehow, they have scaled this to many many more customers than
the total number of internet subscribers. There must be something for
us to le
And don't forget that you still have to change your phone number when you
move a great enough distance. In IP we somehow feel it's important that
there are no geographical constraint on address use at all. That's a
shame, because even if we aggregate by contintent that would save up to
four times i
Paul Vixie wrote:
i think all oldtimers are skewed. growth in number of enterprises will be
of
the small kind where renumbering isn't so painful. exceptions where there
is enough size to make renumbering painful won't overflow the routing table
the way the ipv4 "swamp" threatened to do back in t
> How much would it add to the pain of the v4-v6 transition, to just bite
> the bullet and do tcp-sctp at the same time? I'd sure rather be a
> network troubleshooter going through that than living with NAT forever.
it's the delta between the finite and the infinite. sctp requires a flag
day wh
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:11:36 -0800
> From: Crist Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Lars Erik Gullerud wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 16:36, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >
> >
> >>/127 prefixes are assumed for point-to-point links, and presumably an
> >>organizat
> > I've run into very few enterprises that know they'd even be allowed to
> > join an IX, much less actually interested in doing so.
Subject: Exchange Update - New Participant
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:49:59 -0800
Equinix would like to introduce the following peers to the GigE Exchange
pee
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 08:45:34PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> the second. we'd have built a v6 bastion network and put our public
> services there and done some kind of overlay thing. for things like my
> desktop, we'd've stuck with ipv4, or we'd've pirated some "site local" ipv6
> space. th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ietfreport is timing outhere's another url for this draft.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-04.txt
interesting read at:
http://qbone.internet2.edu/papers/non-architectural-problems.txt
regards,
/vicky
Sean Donel
> > the internet endpoint type trend is toward SOHO and dsl/cable, and the
> > provider trend is toward gigantic multinational. companies who build
> > their own networks tend to find that the cheapest interoffice backhaul
> > is IP-in-IP VPN's. thus is the old model of a 1000-person company buy
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why set up a separate registry system for these addresses instead of
making minor changes to the existing one to accommodate this need?
This is a good point. But rather than reuse the RIRs for this, we should
reuse the domain registry system f
Thus spake "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Stephen Sprunk") writes:
> isc is multihomed, so it's difficult to imagine what isp we could have
> taken address space from then, or now.
...
Some fear that you would more likely just generate a ULA, use that
internally, and NAT at th
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 19-nov-04, at 17:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Don't have "real connectivity"? I've personally worked with dozens of
Fortune 500 companies that have internal FR/ATM networks that dwarf AT&T,
UUnet, etc. in the number of sites connected. Thous
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:58:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On 19-nov-04, at 17:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >Don't have "real connectivity"? I've personally worked with dozens of
> >Fortune 500 companies that have internal FR/ATM networks that dwarf
> >AT&T, UUnet, etc. in the n
On 11/20/2004 8:18 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> But I'm not sure you'd like it applied to the internet. Firstly, in
> essence, PSTN uses static routes for interprovider routing (not quite true,
> but nearly - if you add a new prefix everyone else has to build it into
> their table on all switches). S
--On 19 November 2004 09:40 -0800 Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If it were true, then I would have to renumber
every time I changed telephone companies. I don't, so, obviously, there
is some solution to this problem.
But I'm not sure you'd like it applied to the internet. Firstly, in
ess
On 19-nov-04, at 18:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having unaggregatable
globally routable address space just doesn't scale and there are no
routing tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in the IP
version
bits, so learn to love renumbering.
This is p
On 19-nov-04, at 19:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
There is no reason for RIRs to allocate addresses which would never
be used on
public networks.
If the addresses are suppose to be unique, then, what is the reason
NOT to
have the RIRs allocate them?
The reason is that the RIRs don't talk to end-users.
On 19-nov-04, at 18:50, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
why would the enterprise care to switch to IPv6 in the first place?
Because it's easier to build a big IPv6 network than to build a big
IPv4 network. I think over the next few years we'll see people building
IPv6 networks and then tunneling IPv4 over
On 19-nov-04, at 17:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
these organizations tend to have multiple sites (as you indicate
above) but they generally do not have real connectivity between those
sites. This means a single large prefix won't do them much good, and
basically they're no different than a bunch of
Hi Dan,
I've got some slides from talks I've done, they cover this sortof stuff.
You can see at http://www.sixlabs.org/talks/
Additionally, the size is 2^(128-prefixlen) [more or less]
But you don't use all of them, obviously, it'd be fairly difficult, best
part about a /64 is EUI-64 works (aut
29 matches
Mail list logo
