On 4-okt-2007, at 14:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I would be interested to know how many people favor each of the
following approaches. Feel free to send me private email and I'll
summerize.
I only got three replies, which don't really support drawing many
conclusions.
1. Keep NAT a
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:56:48 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> controller can force enable/disable. I don't see how RIAA can lobby for
> switching off privacy enhancement - disabling certain component of the
> operating system?.
Consider the fact that they lobbied *and got* 17 USC 512 takedowns, and
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:42:05 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> Except if you are using privacy enhanced ipv6 addresses a la RFC 3041
Which is more likely:
1) The RIAA successfully lobbies for a network that basically prohibits rfc3041.
2) The consumers successfully lobby for a network that permits/re
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:35:33 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
> Business folks once ruled the internet but those days are over. The
> consumer is king.
Given yesterday's RIAA victory in their lawsuit in Minnesota, I expect the
RIAA will start lobbying for more ways to easily identify the indiv
On 4-okt-2007, at 17:50, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Hence uPnP and NAT-PMP plus about half a dozen protocols
the IETF is working on.
uPNP is moderately successful in the consumer space; it still
doesn't work very well today, and it won't work at all in a few
years when ISPs are forced to put c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT
>>> box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of
>>> whatever the rest of the community thinks.
>>
>> And then you'll see your active
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Second, the ALGs will have to be (re)written anyways to deal
with IPv6 stateful firewalls, whether or not NAT-PT happens.
That's one solution. I like the hole punching better because it's mor
> Well, if 95% of the people in a position to do this think
> it's worth repeating this effort for IPv6, my objections
> aren't going to stop them. But if the majority or even a
> significant minority don't want to play, then IPv6 NAT is
> going to work a lot worse than IPv4 NAT.
What if o
On 4-okt-2007, at 13:36, Eliot Lear wrote:
That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT
box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of
whatever the rest of the community thinks.
And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP
sessions, e
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT
>> box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of
>> whatever the rest of the community thinks.
>
> And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP
> sessions, etc fai
On 3-okt-2007, at 14:14, John Curran wrote:
I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than
both IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT.
That's great, guys, if "IPv4 with massive levels of NAT" actually
resembles today's Internet and is actually a viable choice.
It does
-Original Message-
From: JAKO Andras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 8:59 PM
To: Church, Charles
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG
Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
>An IPv6-only ISP with eno
> break. It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT
> boxes, and dedicate a block of v4 addresses the size of the expected
> concurrent online users to the NAT-PT box. Keep in mind that a v6 ISP
> with 1 million customers won't need a million v4 addresses, for obvious
> reas
It's seems we're always confusing NAT with PAT (or NAT overload, or
whatever else you want to call it). One to one NAT rarely breaks stuff.
NAT-PT would need to follow that model, otherwise, yes, things will
break. It seems like an IPv6-only ISP would need to operate the NAT-PT
boxes, and dedic
On 3-okt-2007, at 15:52, Mark Newton wrote:
The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a
community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough
to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one
direction or another.
That isn't actually true. I coul
> That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a
> NAT-PT box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet
> regardless of whatever the rest of the community thinks.
>
> This whole "debate" is a complete waste of time,
Yup.
It would be more productive for everyone in the debat
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:02:31PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> The tricky part is that we're not going to agree on that as a
> community, so the status quo will persist until someone cares enough
> to do something drastic that moves the entire industry in one
> direction or ano
> It's a very different circumstance that we have today with
> NAT and it only gets worse as utilization increases.
Does it really get worse?
Or do the ISPs with the eyeballs point at their 6to4, Teredo, ALG
installations and happy customers with IPv6 access lines? And do the
ISPs with the cont
At 12:02 PM +0200 10/3/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.
>
>It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something
>different.
I'm with Randy on this one... While we will have increased
I
On 3-okt-2007, at 9:42, Randy Bush wrote:
but the reality is ipv4 works and ipv6 doesn't.
It has very little deployment at this point in time, that's something
different.
and unless the ivory tower purists get off their doomed thrones,
ipv6 will die stillborn.
And unless the purists,
>> - If we do NAT-PT and the ALGs are implemented and then the
>> application workarounds around the ALGs, it's only a very small
>> step to wide scale IPv6 NAT.
> Perhaps it's a perspective issue, but I really don't see a problem
> with that. If the network works, who cares?
well, the thing i
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:33:43PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:10, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >You can't trust the OS (Microsoft? hah!), you can't trust the
> >application (malware), and you sure as heck can't trust the user
> >(industrial espionage and/or soci
> - IPv4 vs IPv6 is completely invisible to the user. I regularly run
> netstat or tcpdump to see which I'm using, I doubt many people will do
> that. So if IPv6 works and IPv4 doesn't, that will look like random
> breakage to the untrained user rather than something they can do
> something about.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:07:19PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >IPv6 will happen. Eventually. And it'll have deficiencies which
> >some believe are "severe", just like the IPv4 Internet. Such as
> >NAT. Deal with it.
>
> If you want NAT, please come up with a standards document
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:50:09PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:55, Mark Newton wrote:
> >So everyone will deploy IPv6 applications, which require no ALGs,
> >instead.
> >Isn't that a solution that everyone can be happy with?
>
> Well, I can think of a couple o
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> >By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
> >ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
> >P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it wor
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Second, the ALGs will have to be (re)written anyways to deal with
IPv6 stateful firewalls, whether or not NAT-PT happens.
That's one solution. I like the hole punching better because it's
more general purpose and better adheres to the principl
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:55, Mark Newton wrote:
ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like
network where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers
that be permit you to.
No, they turn the Intenret into a network where you only get to
deploy new IPv4 applica
On 2-okt-2007, at 16:53, Mark Newton wrote:
By focussing on the mechanics of inbound NAT traversal, you're
ignoring the fact that applications work regardless. Web, VoIP,
P2P utilities, games, IM, Google Earth, you name it, it works.
O really? When was the last time you successfully transfer
> > End-to-end-ness is and has been "busted" in the corporate world AFAICT
> > for a number of years. IPv6 "people" seem to think that simply
> > providing
> > globally unique addressing to all endpoints will remove NAT and all
> > associated trouble. Guess what - it probably won't.
>
> If you
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2-okt-2007, at 11:36, John Curran wrote:
The proxy&tunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely
based on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks
as NAT-PT,
The main issue with a proxy is that it's TCP-only. The main iss
Thus spake Duane Waddle
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall,
you're delusional. That battle is long over. The best we can hope
for is that those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.
Vendor C claims to
On 10/2/07, Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If you think anyone will be deploying v6 without a stateful firewall,
> you're
> delusional. That battle is long over. The best we can hope for is that
> those personal firewalls won't do NAT as well.
>
>
Vendor C claims to support v6 (w
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:50:57PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like
> network where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers
> that be permit you to.
No, they turn the Intenret into a network where you
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:35:11PM +1300, Perry Lorier wrote:
> > What has happened? Well, application protocols have evolved to
> > accommodate NAT weirdness (e.g., SIP NAT discovery), and NATs have
> > undergone incremental improvements, and almost no end-users care about
> > NATs. As lo
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Please explain how you plan on getting rid of those protocol-
aware plugins when IPv6 is widely deployed in environments
with -stateful firewalls-.
You just open up a hole in the firewall where
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 1-okt-2007, at 19:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
There is no "IPv6 world". I've heard reference over and over to how
developers shouldn't add "NAT support" into v6 apps, but
the reality is that there are no "v6 apps". There are IPv4 apps
a
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Please explain how you plan on getting rid of those protocol-aware
plugins
when IPv6 is widely deployed in environments with -stateful
firewalls-.
You just open up a hole in the firewall where appropriate.
You can have an ALG, the application o
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Yes, but it's the IPv4 NAT we all know and love (to hate). So this
> means all the ALGs you can think of already exist and we get to leave
> that problem behind when we turn off IPv4. Also, not unimportant: it
> allows IPv4-only applicatio
On 2-okt-2007, at 14:08, John Curran wrote:
That's a wonderful solution, and you should feel free to use it.
It's particularly fun from a support perspective, because you
get to be involved all the way down the host level.
Tunneling IPv4 over IPv6 and translating IPv4 into IPv6 pretty much
At 1:50 PM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>ALGs are not the solution. They turn the internet into a telco-like network
>where you only get to deploy new applications when the powers that be permit
>you to.
At the point in time that NAT-PR is used for backward
compatibility (becaus
On 2-okt-2007, at 11:36, John Curran wrote:
The proxy&tunnel vs NAT-PT differences of opinion are entirely based
on deployment model... proxy has the same drawbacks as NAT-PT,
The main issue with a proxy is that it's TCP-only. The main issue
with NAT-PT is that the applications don't know w
At 5:36 AM -0400 10/2/07, John Curran wrote:
>...
>tunnelling is still going to require NAT in the deployment mode once
>IPv4 addresses are readily available.
c/are/are no longer/
(before my morning caffeine fix)
/John
At 10:43 AM +0200 10/2/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>When v4-only users get sick of going through a NAT-PT because it breaks a few
>>things, that will be their motivation to get real IPv6 connectivity and turn
>>the NAT-PT box off -- or switch it around so they can be a v6-only site
>>inte
> What has happened? Well, application protocols have evolved to
> accommodate NAT weirdness (e.g., SIP NAT discovery), and NATs have
> undergone incremental improvements, and almost no end-users care about
> NATs. As long as they can use the Google, BitTorrent and Skype, most
> moms and dads n
On 1-okt-2007, at 19:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The problem with NAT-PT (translating between IPv6 and IPv4
similar to IPv4 NAT) was that it basically introduces all the NAT
ugliness that we know in IPv4 into the IPv6 world.
There is no "IPv6 world". I've heard reference over and over to
how
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 09:18:43PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> That depends. If Amazon sees absolutely no ill effects from v6 users
> reaching it via v4, then they obviously have little technical incentive to
> migrate. OTOH, if that is true, then all the whining about how "evil"
> NA
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Historic" usually refers to "stuff we've managed to mostly stamp
out production use".
So it boils down to "Do you think that once that camel has gotten
its nose into the tent, he'll ever actually leave?".
This particular camel will be here until we manage to ge
> Now the more interesting question is: Given that we're going
> to see NAT-PT in a lot of service provider architectures to make
> deploying IPv6 viable, should it be considered a general enough
> transition mechanism to be Proposed Standard or just be a very
> widely deployed Historic
At 3:11 PM -0400 10/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So it boils down to "Do you think that once that camel has gotten its nose
>into the tent, he'll ever actually leave?".
>
>(Consider that if (for example) enough ISPs deploy that sort of migration
>tool, then Amazon has no incentive to move to IP
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:39:16 EDT, John Curran said:
> Now the more interesting question is: Given that we're going
> to see NAT-PT in a lot of service provider architectures to make
> deploying IPv6 viable, should it be considered a general enough
> transition mechanism to be Proposed Sta
At 12:56 PM -0500 10/1/07, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>...
>The fundamental flaw in the transition plan is that it assumes every host will
>dual-stack before the first v6-only node appears. At this point, I think we
>can all agree it's obvious that isn't going to happen.
>
>NAT-PT gives hosts the _a
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For the purpose of this particular discussion, NAT in IPv4 is basically a
given: coming up with an IPv4-IPv6 transition
mechanism that only works with if no IPv4 NAT is present both
defeats the purpose (if we had that kind of address space
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 28-sep-2007, at 6:25, Jari Arkko wrote:
And make it works both way, v4 to v6 and v6 to v4.
And also don’t call it NAT-PT. That name is dead.
For what it is worth, this is one of the things that I want
to do. I don't want to give you an
e: John Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:10:24 -0400
> Para: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Asunto: Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action:
&g
55 matches
Mail list logo
