On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 18:02 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Instead of hacking the nice and working TCP we have now you should
move on to greener grass and use SCTP instead. It does what you
want, at least in the specification. I don't know how many implementors
have managed to code it
On 23-nov-04, at 11:09, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
Well, suppose we know 212/8 is used in Europe. A network that is
present in say, North America and Europe then has the routers in
Europe
that talk to the routers in America filter out all 212/8 more
specifics
and only announce the aggregate instead.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:28:40PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 29 Nov 2004, at 10:58, Andre Oppermann wrote:
You can solve the renumber thingie by having all TCP connecting to/from
an official IP on the loopback interface. Then the routing code could
do its work and route the packets
the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its intrinsic
multihoming support. the idea was that you could go from N upstreams to
N+1 (or N-1) merely by adding/deleting DNAME RRs. so if you wanted to
switch from ISP1 to ISP2 you'd start by adding a connection to ISP2, then
add a
I suspect that it is now time to agree to disagree.
I have said before and will say again:
1. IPv4 is fundamentally flawed in that we are using a single
resource as both an end-point identifier and a routing
identifier. The phone companies figured out
--On Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:35 PM -0800 william(at)elan.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
6. Acknowledgments
[...]
Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept
of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is
Paul Vixie wrote:
(catching up)
(you missed some stuff.)
On 2004-11-22, at 18.52, Paul Vixie wrote:
(let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of
complexity, and it was simpler than this.)
I am not convinced A6/DNAME would have solved all problems, not even
all of the ones you pointed
And please don't add any more layering violations. It makes implementors
life painful and kills any architectual cleaniess in operating systems.
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host w/o
killing or restarting its active tcp flows. this isn't a layering
Paul Vixie wrote:
And please don't add any more layering violations. It makes implementors
life painful and kills any architectual cleaniess in operating systems.
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host w/o
killing or restarting its active tcp flows. this isn't
Paul Vixie wrote:
And please don't add any more layering violations. It makes implementors
life painful and kills any architectual cleaniess in operating systems.
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host w/o
killing or restarting its active tcp flows. this isn't a
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:58 +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
And please don't add any more layering violations. It makes implementors
life painful and kills any architectual cleaniess in operating systems.
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host
w/o killing or restarting its active tcp flows. this isn't a
layering violation. tcp should be able to know about
endpoint-renumber events.
Unfortunately this sounds like a good target for people to mess up
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host
w/o killing or restarting its active tcp flows. this isn't a
layering violation. tcp should be able to know about
endpoint-renumber events.
This is a layering violation and has endless security implications.
as i
On 29 Nov 2004, at 10:58, Andre Oppermann wrote:
You can solve the renumber thingie by having all TCP connecting to/from
an official IP on the loopback interface. Then the routing code could
do its work and route the packets through some some other or renumbered
interface.
So how do you renumber
ifconfig le0:1 newaddr netmask newmask
YMMV depending on your operating system.
Owen
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 1:28 PM -0500 Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 29 Nov 2004, at 10:58, Andre Oppermann wrote:
You can solve the renumber thingie by having all TCP connecting to/from
an
On 29 Nov 2004, at 13:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
ifconfig le0:1 newaddr netmask newmask
YMMV depending on your operating system.
If the old address is removed, then TCP sessions established with the
old address as an endpoint will break; hence plumbing TCP sessions to
loopback addresses is not a
Right... Well... The point of the loopback thingy was that you don't
renumber the loopback. The address assigned to the loopback is used
as the session endpoint identifier, while, the address assigned to
the network interface is used as the routing endpoint identifier. So,
BGP takes care of
Paul Vixie wrote:
let me put that another way, in case it's not clear enough as stated:
tcp's existing reference to network addresses are a layering violation,
and so anything we do to improve the situation will also be a layering
violation, but what of it? deciding against making tcp less pure
On 29 Nov 2004, at 13:50, Owen DeLong wrote:
Right... Well... The point of the loopback thingy was that you don't
renumber the loopback.
This is not any kind of answer to the problem of TCP session
survivability across renumbering events; it's an answer to the
non-problem of TCP session
Paul Vixie wrote:
i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host
w/o killing or restarting its active tcp flows. this isn't a
layering violation. tcp should be able to know about
endpoint-renumber events.
This is a layering violation and has endless security implications.
It would have been nice to make sctp be the standard stream protocol
for ipv6.
yup. or at any rate, SOME kind of improvement in this area.
For most nanog customers, there's still time.
nope.
Those places that have already seen significant ipv6 adoption may
need to upgrade again.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-22, at 19.29, william(at)elan.net wrote:
What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as
one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc.
I don't see this as really true. MUTLI is tasked with solving the
(catching up)
(you missed some stuff.)
On 2004-11-22, at 18.52, Paul Vixie wrote:
(let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of
complexity, and it was simpler than this.)
I am not convinced A6/DNAME would have solved all problems, not even
all of the ones you pointed
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its intrinsic
multihoming support. the idea was that you could go from N upstreams to
N+1 (or N-1) merely by adding/deleting DNAME RRs. so if you wanted to
switch from ISP1 to ISP2 you'd start by
[...]
Isn't about the same achievable with about two or three lines of
scripting (or a new zone parsing option for bind ;) with a lot less
protocol complexity?
only if you can tolerate short TTL's on all your 's. in the A6/DNAME
model, your A6's could have long TTL's whereas your
Except that A6/DNAME also supported your upstream being able to initiate
prefix renumbering without having to involve the end customer...
As I understand it:
foo.blah.org. IN A6 MYISP1 ::4321:53ef
MYSIP1 IN DNAME 10 prefix1.isp1.net. ::dead:beef::
Then, in ISP1's
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
(catching up)
(you missed some stuff.)
eh, so must I have, atleast about multi-homing :) I'll ask below.
(and yes, I'm still behind on the ipv6 reading I was supposed to do)
On 2004-11-22, at 18.52, Paul Vixie wrote:
(let me put it this way:
..., it seems to me that MULTI6's only option is to make NAT work,
even if you call it site local addressing or even ULA's. ...
there are, and will be in the future, folks that WANT NAT, regardless of
the perceived 'badness' of it...
i know. i've met some. i've been one. please join
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
Except that A6/DNAME also supported your upstream being able to initiate
prefix renumbering without having to involve the end customer...
[...]
Sure. But draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-03.txt says it IMHO
well:
6. Acknowledgments
[...]
Some
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
6. Acknowledgments
[...]
Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept
of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is daft.
[Note: check spell error - draft not daft]
Their comments, if they result in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul,
On 2004-11-28, at 17.47, Paul Vixie wrote:
(catching up)
(you missed some stuff.)
Yes, I have had lot's of fun reading through almost a week of Nanog...
the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its
On 25-nov-04, at 21:16, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute to the
global routing table so there is no issue. :-)
There is an issue of uniqueness. Those hosts that can't reach the
Internet
typically can talk to other hosts that can, and even multiple
It would probably also help if the ICANN directs all registries that glue
records towards ULA space aren't allowed.
Or cause people to start providing copies of the v6 equivalent of
.in-addr.arpa
that contain RIR pointers and glue for ULA.
Owen
--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No connectivity to the internet? - use ULA, quick, easy, cheap.
ULA leaves a bad taste for a number of reasons, some of which
have seen some discussion. What has not occured, and seems to
be a major tenent of the ULA zelots, is how conflict resolution
is to be
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21-nov-04, at 20:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The point is, that these days applications such as mail and web are
sufficiently heavy that you can't even run them cost effectively over
dial up (wasting your employee's time costs more than
Sure, sooner or later two networks will happen to generate the same prefix.
When that happens -- and assuming those networks want to talk to each other,
one of them simply generates a new prefix and renumbers. This is a
significantly better situation than with RFC1918 (or SLAs) where a
ULAs do not contribute to the global routing table unless ISPs allow them to
in violation of the draft's wording and intent. The WG welcomes input on
how to prevent this from occurring without invoking restraint of trade
concerns.
just like RFC 1918 space hum...
--bill
Paul Vixie wrote:
i do. see, that is. because rapid renumbering wasn't a bilateral protocol
requirement from day 1, renumbering will always be a crock of swill in ipv6
just as it is in ipv4.
Ahem. On Day 1 -- that is SIP, for (Steve's) Simpler IP and my PIPE
Practical IP Extentions [later
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote:
For instance, 212.x.y.z is known to be on one continent, and so on -
but how do you leverage that into a 212/8 routing entry?
Well, suppose we know 212/8 is used in Europe. A network that is
present in say, North America and Europe then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote:
The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
this level of
On 23-nov-04, at 6:49, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
If all active ASes did this we'd have a 400k routing table. So please
no PI in IPv6, not even for large enterprises.
Why is an ISP more worthy or PI space than a large enterprise. In
fact, ISPs are responsible for far, far more table pollution
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:32 +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote:
The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes:
I'm going to try to make this my last message on this subject...
ok.
In addition to portable address space being harmful, I also believe
it's not really necessary. Renumbering client-only systems is NOT a
problem with DHCP or IPv6
On 21-nov-04, at 20:05, Paul Vixie wrote:
(note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of
arin's board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.)
You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important
that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the
On 21-nov-04, at 20:12, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The point is, that these days applications such as mail and web are
sufficiently heavy that you can't even run them cost effectively over
dial up (wasting your employee's time costs more than the fatter
line) let alone less.
That assumes the
Not necessarily true. I live in California. However, 703-842-5527 is a
valid phone number for me. It even worked for me while I was in Puerto
Vallarta, Mexico. I can take that number pretty much any where in the
world, whether temporarily, or, even if I move there.
This isn't just a US
No, that's not what I'm interested in. What I'd like to know is how many
big organizations backhaul their internet traffic to one or a few central
sites, and how many connect to one or more ISPs locally at different
sites.
I believe there are enough examples of each that neither can be ignored.
I
you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role.
Please explain them then.
briefly, because i consider myself off-topic and sue probably does also.
the problem statement answered by the ipngwg was wrong. they thought they
were supposed to solve the shortage of address
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 16:53 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role.
Please explain them then.
briefly, because i consider myself off-topic and sue probably does also.
The off-topicness is most likely only as this is an enduser/site
none of those three things is acceptable, not even as a compromise.
The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
this
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
this level of complexity seems a little high for anything to be universal.
(let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and
it was simpler
On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:52 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
none of those three things is acceptable, not even as a compromise.
The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
BTW - regarding why these effots while being ip-independet would not
work for Ipv6, the reason is addressing. We need new kind of addresses
and they all require id that TCP can use for establishing connection
and that ID can not be limited to 32 bit so we end up considering
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems to imply several things:
- when having lots of sites, you typically want to obtain local
Internet connectivity, because transporting all the traffic over
links or VPNs is a pretty heavy business
this is an assertion which many have
No connectivity to the internet? - use ULA, quick, easy, cheap.
ULA leaves a bad taste for a number of reasons, some of which
have seen some discussion. What has not occured, and seems to
be a major tenent of the ULA zelots, is how conflict resolution
is to be
Internet connectivity, because transporting all the traffic over
links or VPNs is a pretty heavy business
this is an assertion which many have claimed is false.
based on empericial evidence.
Care to offer a couple of examples of this empirical evidence ?
I have worked for multiple enterprises where both of the statements below
were false. There are many enterprises which run their own backbones,
have internet access at some subset of their sites, and, backhaul all
traffic on their own backbone to enforce policy at the internet borders.
Some of
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:24:15 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems to imply several things:
- when having lots of sites, you typically want to obtain local
Internet connectivity, because transporting all the
While I would never argue there are companies who do not push internal
data over the Internet, I am surprised you think that proves no company
pushes internal data over the Internet.
i don't. my assertion is that there are significant networks
that don't ever touch what we
On Nov 22, 2004, at 2:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I would never argue there are companies who do not push internal
data over the Internet, I am surprised you think that proves no
company
pushes internal data over the Internet.
i don't. my assertion is that there are significant
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I would never argue there are companies who do not push internal
data over the Internet, I am surprised you think that proves no company
pushes internal data over the Internet.
i don't. my assertion is that there are significant networks
the tyres on this this thread are getting threadbare. let's finish soon.
(let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and
it was simpler than this.)
Wasn't it more because a single A6 lookup could cause one (the resolver
that is ;) to have to follow a overly
Pekka,
All of the examples I referenced (which I unfortunately cannot name
due to NDA) fit exactly the model you are referring to. They advertise a
small
number of prefixes from a small number of sites to cover a very large and
diverse number of sites. They advertise the same set of prefixes
On 22-nov-04, at 17:53, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
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
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:28:06 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
The general objection (apart from incorrect assumptions based on old
incomplete work) is that network topology and geography don't
correlate. My counter-objection is that the correlation doesn't have to
be 1 to be able to take
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
That's right. If you need internet access, you need it to be faster than
16 kbps.
Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet? 16kbps is
the lowest I've seen only because that's the smallest you can buy
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:40:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet?
Not me. But if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute
to the global routing table so there is no issue. :-)
The point is, that these
On 22-nov-04, at 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that network topology and geography don't
correlate. My counter-objection is that the correlation doesn't have
to
be 1 to be able to take advantage of it when it's present.
On the other hand, unless you have some way to *enforce* a higher
On 22-nov-04, at 19:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you might look at Apple,
To pick just one example, here is what AS714 is sourcing:
Network Next HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path
* i17.0.0.0/9 8.21.82.8580110 0 65453 2914
12182 714 i
* i17.0.0.0
On 22-nov-04, at 17:53, Paul Vixie wrote:
so there. those are my views. aren't you glad you asked?
Sure.
It seems to me though, that if renumbering is such a problem, maybe we
should deal with it directly rather than dump the fallout in the three
most critical parts of the internet machinery.
If all active ASes did this we'd have a 400k routing table. So please
no PI in IPv6, not even for large enterprises.
er... we'd have no such thing. -you- might, you get to
have total control over what prefixes are instanciated in
-your- router. you seem to have the
It's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided
regionally.
yes. i understand that the acid rain people, the ozone layer
people, the ice cap people, the whale people, and the ocean oxygen
level people, all have that same complaint. human nature on a grand
scale
On Nov 22, 2004, at 7:01 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If all active ASes did this we'd have a 400k routing table. So please
no PI in IPv6, not even for large enterprises.
Why is an ISP more worthy or PI space than a large enterprise. In
fact, ISPs are responsible for far, far more table
ok, i'll bite.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick W Gilmore) writes:
Why is an ISP more worthy or PI space than a large enterprise. In
fact, ISPs are responsible for far, far more table pollution than
enterprises. Pot-Kettle-Black?
to ask about worthiness is to presuppose a valuer. worthy in
Paul Vixie wrote:
more importantly though is your /40 example. ipv6 has enough address space
in it to be able to give a /32 to every household on the planet, including
a reserve for the ones without electric power or phones. giving out /40's
If we ever make contact to some other civilization
--On 21 November 2004 11:59 +0200 Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we ever make contact to some other civilization out there, do they
have to run NAT?
Nah. Jim Fleming tells me they're running IPv8 (ducks)
Alex
I think this is important point that needs to be called out
explicitly.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-19, at 12.46, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 12:15 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-nov-04, at 18:02, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg
seperate
offices,
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.
*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 be a problem.
On 20-nov-04, at 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Don't have real connectivity?
That's right. If you need internet access, you need it to be faster
than 16 kbps.
Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet?
Not me. But if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute
to
On 20-nov-04, at 21:45, Paul Vixie wrote:
for all these reasons, large or multihoming endsystems will need V6
PI allocations and at some point the RIRs are going to have to
define/allow
this.
I find your attitude in this regard disturbing, especially as:
(note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor
for all these reasons, large or multihoming endsystems will need V6
PI allocations and at some point the RIRs are going to have to
define/allow this.
I find your attitude in this regard disturbing, especially as:
(note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of
arin's
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20-nov-04, at 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Don't have real connectivity?
That's right. If you need internet access, you need it to be faster than
16 kbps.
Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet?
Not me. But if you
Somebody said:
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.
*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 be a
Paul Vixie wrote:
But
to consider a /40 minimum allocation size, you'd be saying that you thought
a table containing O(1e12) discrete destinations
Except that we are talking about allocations out of 2001::/16 which
yeilds a about
1e7 prefixes, not subtracting the huge chunks taken by /32
So a single large address block is of little use to such an organization,
unless they get to announce more specifics all over the place.
This seems to imply several things:
- when having lots of sites, you typically want to obtain local
Internet connectivity, because transporting all
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
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
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 18:40, 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
--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
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).
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
ATT, UUnet, etc. in the number of
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 ATT,
UUnet, etc. in the number of sites connected. Thousands
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 the
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 for
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 buying
a
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. there is
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
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
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo
