Re: IPv6 news

> > We do not think, that _it wil be IPv6_. IPv6 is a good example of _second_ > > system, and do not looks as _succesfull_ for now. > > And it is not definitely _LAST PROTOCOL_. > > > > enter jim fleming (or those chinese guys, more recently) with ipv9 No, enter the National Science Foundation

Re: IPv6 news

On 24/10/05, Alexei Roudnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We do not think, that _it wil be IPv6_. IPv6 is a good example of _second_ > system, and do not looks as _succesfull_ for now. > And it is not definitely _LAST PROTOCOL_. > enter jim fleming (or those chinese guys, more recently) with ipv

Re: IPv6 news

. - Original Message - From: "Gregory Edigarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:42 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 news > > Just my 5 cents to the topic: > > Don't you all think that IPv6 would not be so neccessary fo

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

t;Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Per Heldal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) > > >> There is a fundamenta

Re: IPv6 news

On Oct 19, 2005, at 9:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is it that whenever people suggest that the IP networking world can learn from the experience of the telephony world, some people assume that the proposal is to imitate the telephony world in every detail? Seems to me to be a species

Re: IPv6 news

> Survey says... BZT. Yaur argument is fallacious. > Read about SS7 LNP implementation before speaking, please. I never said anything about SS7 implementation of LNP. > They are very different creatures. Something that resembles telephony LNP > will not scale to the quantity of micro-st

Re: IPv6 news

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Again, phone numbers and their portability can and should not be > > compared with the IP address portability issues. They're very > > different animals. > > That's your elephant. My elephant looks different. Survey says... BZT. Read about

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 15:52 -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Hmm. Are the aliens who took the _real_ IETF and replaced it with > what's there now going to give it back? :-) > Sure they'll hand it back ... when there is no more money to be made from IETF-related technology and politicians no lon

Re: IPv6 news

> Again, phone numbers and their portability can and should not be > compared with the IP address portability issues. They're very > different animals. That's your elephant. My elephant looks different. Phone numbers and IP addresses are exactly the same. They are numbers used to identify the l

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> Obviously if the RIRs contacted the folks responsible for a given block and > were provided justification for its continued allocation, then it should not > be reclaimed. On the other hand, folks sitting on several class Bs and not > using them could have their blocks reclaimed trivially;

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony, On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Tony Li wrote: Not necessarily. If you transition at the edge, what happens within the site matters only to the site and what matters to the core only matters to the core. No stacks, either core or edge, need to be rewritten. Transitioning at the edg

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Daniel, But wasn't that the rationale for originally putting the kitchen sink into IPv6, rather than fixing the address length issue? The stated rationale was to fix the address length issue. I think we missed a lot of opportunities. Amen. We're 10 years on, and talking about wheth

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

David, A real locator/identifier separation requires a rewrite. Not necessarily. If you transition at the edge, what happens within the site matters only to the site and what matters to the core only matters to the core. No stacks, either core or edge, need to be rewritten. Trans

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> E.g prevously announced address-blocks that has disappeared from the global routing-table for more than X months should go back to the RIR-pool (X<=6). In RFC 2050 section 3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Fred! On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Fred Baker wrote: > But yes, communities of a rational size and density could get an address > block, the relevant ISPs could all advertise it into the backbone, and the > ISPs could determine among themselves how to de

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

the principal issue I see with your proposal is that it is DUAL homing vs MULTI homing. To make it viable, I think you have to say something like "two or more ISPs must participate in a multilateral peering arrangement that shares the address pool among them". The location of the actual p

RE: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Nanog, I've been thinking a bunch about this IPv6 multihoming issue. It seems that the method of hierarchical summarization will keep the global tables small for all single-homed end user blocks. But the multihomed ones will be the problem. The possible solution I've been thinking about

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) wrote: > I'm suggesting not mucking with the packet format anymore. It might > be ugly, but it can be made to work until somebody comes up with > IPv7. Instead, since the locator/identifier split wasn't done in the > protocol, do the split in _operation_.

Re: IPv6 news

At 07:36 AM 10/18/2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: [... items deleted ...] To summarize the differences between PSTN and Internet routing: o PSTN ports numbers only within regions/area codes o PSTN routes the return path along the forward path (symetric) o PSTN calls have pre-determined char

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Tony, On Oct 16, 2005, at 1:15 AM, Tony Li wrote: A real locator/identifier separation requires a rewrite. Not necessarily. If you transition at the edge, what happens within the site matters only to the site and what matters to the core only matters to the core. No stacks, either core

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: SS7 over IP is quite popular these days. However call routing != SS7 message routing. By call-routing you mean the actual circuit switching of each call? I don't mean that, I mean the number routing, which SS7 /does/ do - you re

Re: IPv6 news

Michael, On Oct 17, 2005, at 6:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is VJ compression considered a violation of the "end-to-end" principle? VJ compression happens in the middle of the network, between two routers/gateways. End-to-end refers to the hosts, i.e. the computers which "host" the end use

RE: IPv6 news

> > > Nope, it's not. Can you name a phone prefix routing protocol? > > Ehm, SS7 ;). One of the functions provided for in the SS7 network is called Global Title Translation (GTT). The SCCP, in this case call it the switch, has the ability to perform minimal routing using GTT. GTT frees the ST

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: Yea, but only by chance, not by design. ;-) Nope, by design. Routing would generally be better. The entire area would effectively be multihomed to the set of area-ISPs. There'd be some downsides too, eg where a provider attracting traffic for th

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: you care whether it is Sprint, Level(3) or Cogent? Apparently you don't. With your proposed you don't have much/any influence on the way your packets take. They might take much better routes actually than is possible today. Y

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: don't. With your proposed you don't have much/any influence on the way your packets take. Oh, NB: It's not my proposal at all. I'm merely exploring it. ;) Further, most of the thinking on this was done by the likes of Marcelo Bagnulo, Iljitsch va

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: you care whether it is Sprint, Level(3) or Cogent? Apparently you don't. With your proposed you don't have much/any influence on the way your packets take. They might take much better routes actually than is possible today. regards, -- Paul Jakm

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: Yes, but it's a very cumbersum process. You have to track this stuff for all regions and countries. They all vary how they do it. For example your ComReg publishes a couple of tables now and then with new/changed information. (Look for ComReg 04/

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: Traffic flows will just happen there. Forget capacity planning. You'd have a hard time finding ISP's interested in that. Maybe. Look at it the other way though, it's a business opportunity - you can make money by attracting as m

Re: IPv6 news

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right, cause phone number portability is up and running for several sets of prefixes in various regions across the world[1], so there's definitely nothing we can learn from them. ;) Well, we can learn from them that circuit switched networks are different than p

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: Again, this fails with the asymmetric nature of IP routing. The assymetric nature is plus-point. It means the traffic out of the area goes out via the "correct" provider (ie the one whose customer it is). On top it fails on bandwidth issues. Wh

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> this because padlipsky's mantra about maps and territories came into my head S.I. Hayakawa - Language and Thought in Action "The symbol is not the thing the thing symbolized; The map is not the territory: The word is not the thing." Nevertheless, Padlipsky is a good thing to read.

RE: IPv6 news

> > No. Within a region. Normally area codes are a region. Sometimes > entire country codes are a region in this sense. Depends on the size > of the region/country though. In some cases there is even more than > one area code for the same region. LATA's are geographic areas and NPX(prefix)

Re: IPv6 news

> 1. Does the US have number portability anywhere? If so, that would be > a /huge/ region, and very interesting to examine to see how they > manage it. In the USA this is called LNP (Local Number Portability). This article has a couple of pages of history and then a technical overview of how L

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Paul Jakma wrote: If you want to focus on the differences between IP and POTS/GSM, sure, they're completely different. However, the point is to examine the abstract model for how telcos manage to achieve number portability without global-scope exchange

Re: IPv6 news

> > Right, cause phone number portability is up and running for several sets > > of prefixes in various regions across the world[1], so there's > > definitely nothing we can learn from them. ;) > > Well, we can learn from them that circuit switched networks are different > than packet switche

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: As we know from the Internet DFZ the routing table becomes very large. However, it can be confined to that arbitrary area. Yes, but it's a very cumbersum process. You have to track this stuff for all regions and countries. They

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Paul Jakma wrote: If you want to focus on the differences between IP and POTS/GSM, sure, they're completely different. However, the point is to examine the abstract model for how telcos manage to achieve number portability without global-scope exchange of subscriber infor

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:49:36 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I reread this and still don't see how geographical ip address allocation > > is going to work if typical customer connections are network-centric > > and any large area has number of competitive access providers > > Inside the c

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

# >> True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make # >> use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport # >> protocols. # > # > The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something # > which can do the lookup and supply transport with

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: No. Within a region. Normally area codes are a region. Sometimes entire country codes are a region in this sense. Depends on the size of the region/country though. In some cases there is even more than one area code for the same region. Ah, yes

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: On a local level however it's not more than a DNS name mapping to some real on-net identifier. Within a telco? No. Within a region. Normally area codes are a region. Sometimes entire country codes are a region in this sense.

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: We don't want them involved in Internet routing, do we? Which, POTS telco's or ComReg? :) The latter does a good job afaict. Do you have any idea how this works internally? Apparently not. I have had telco people vaguely explain some of the iss

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: We all know how well carrier phone number routing and number portability works, don't we? EWORKSFORME (and everyone else here). Took a good bit of very firm pressure from ComReg, the telecoms wathdog/regulator here, to overcome

Re: IPv6 news

> I reread this and still don't see how geographical ip address allocation > is going to work if typical customer connections are network-centric > and any large area has number of competitive access providers Inside the city, you see lots of longer prefixes from that city's netblock. Outside th

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: I reread this and still don't see how geographical ip address allocation is going to work if typical customer connections are network-centric That's a "today's operator" view of customers though. Many customers view their network as being situ

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> E.g prevously > announced address-blocks that has disappeared from the global > routing-table for more than X months should go back to the RIR-pool > (X<=6). In RFC 2050 section 3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> > check out "The Landmark Hierarchy: A New Hierarchy for Routing in Very Large > > Networks"; Paul Tsuchiya; 1989. > >great stuff... i have a hardcopy. is it online yet? Just google for "landmark routing" and you will find lots of papers and presentations that deal with the topic. If OSP

Re: IPv6 news

I reread this and still don't see how geographical ip address allocation is going to work if typical customer connections are network-centric and any large area has number of competitive access providers (unless you're fine with multiple providers announcing aggregate summary in anycast fashion)

Re: IPv6 news

> > Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should > > be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within > > I am a multihomed customer and my ISPs are in two different cities. What > are my IP addresses going to be? Your assumptions are flawed. I never suggested that there would be a flag day. I

Re: IPv6 news

> And who is going to force the ISPs to interconnect at the city level? Customers, of course! Who else ever forces ISPs to do anything? > For competitive reasons there is no peering in my city. The nearest > peering points are several hundred miles away, in different directions, > and even thos

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 11:39:37AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should > be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within I am a multihomed customer and my ISPs are in two different cities. What are my IP addresses going to be? This situation happens a

geo-based routing [Re: IPv6 news]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt will be quite of your liking. Not at all. This proposal is all about allocating addresses based on country boundaries and I reject this model. The Internet is a network of cities, not countries. T

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport protocols. The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something which can do the lookup and supply transport with right addre

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: We all know how well carrier phone number routing and number portability works, don't we? EWORKSFORME (and everyone else here). Took a good bit of very firm pressure from ComReg, the telecoms wathdog/regulator here, to overcome negative reaction f

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Also, if everybody got their equal size subnet delegation from each ISP then it shouldnt be that much of a problem to run two "networks" side-by-side by using the subnet part of the delegation equal to both networks, but keep the prefix separate.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: True. Even better, you get to change this binding (mobility) or have multiple bindings (multihoming). Indeed. True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport prot

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Li) writes: > Specifically, the IAB should call for a halt to IPv6 deployment until > consensus is reached on a scalable routing architecture. I realize > that this is painful, but continuing to deploy is simply creating a > v6 mortgage that we cannot afford to pay

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Fred, So the routing problem was looked at, and making a fundamental routing change was rejected by both the operational community and the routing folks. No, IPv6 doesn't fix (or even change) the routing of the system, and that problem will fester until it becomes important enough to

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> What we need is an interdomain routing system that can either (a) > drastically reduce the incremental cost of additional prefixes in the DFZ, > or (b) move the exist cost out of the DFZ to the people who want to > multihome. Both probably mean ditching BGP4 and moving to some sort of > int

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Thus spake "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The RIRs have been trying pretty hard to make IPv6 allocations be one prefix per ISP, with truly large edge networks being treated as functionally equivalent to an ISP (PI addressing without admitting it is being done). Make the bald assertion that

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

- Original Message - From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Per Heldal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 15:12 Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) That is an assumption that I haven

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Wasn't Noel Chiappa Nimrods "father" ? He explained his philosophy to me in an interview a decade ago as well as why he believed that BGP was not sustainable. yet here we are still chugging along meanwhile back to your operational flows ;-) ==

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:24:08 -0700 Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Tony et al.; This is beginning to sound like an IETF or IRTF mail list, and, lo!, I get an email today from Leslie Daigle : A new mailing list has been created to provide a forum for general discussion of Internet ar

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Tony Li wrote: To not even *attempt* to avoid future all-systems changes is nothing short of negligent, IMHO. On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: and that is what the other v6 ivory tower crew said a decade ago. which is why we have the disaster we ha

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:57:52 -0700 David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:45:40AM -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is probably the most common misunderstanding of the end-to-end > > principle out there. Someone else can dig up the quote, but > > ba

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

we agree that at least initially every prefix allocated should belong to a different AS (eg, no AS gets more than one); the fly in that is whether there is an ISP somewhere that is so truly large that it needs two super-sized blocks. I don't know if such exists, but one hopes it is very m

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Daniel, If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to happen again. That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocol transition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is. We can't

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

At 04:51 PM 10/17/2005, Tony Li wrote: Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but th

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

>> There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in the >> table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it to >> bloat in the first place. Simply reducing the table as a one-off >> only buys you linearly more time. Eliminating the drivers for bloat >> buys you te

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - > but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and > will have to. and that is what the other v6 ivory tower crew said a decade ago. which is why we have the disaster we have now. randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

It doesn't look like were talking about the same thing. A. Address conservation and aggregation (IPv4 and IPv6) is very important to get the most out of what we've got. Read; limit the combined routing-table to a manageable size whatever that may be. B. There seems to be widespread fear that the

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and will have to. On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Tony Li wrote: Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On 10/17/05 4:51 PM, "Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fred, > >> If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of >> magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally >> change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and >> yes, I would like to

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but that is a different assertion. Th

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

That is an assumption that I haven't found it necessary to make. I have concluded that there is no real debate about whether the Internet will have to change to something that gives us the ability to directly address (e.g. not behind a NAT, which imposes some "interesting" requirements at

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> --bill (checking citesear...) does that only yield rare papers :-) and citeseer does not have the paper, only a few cites to it randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

>> check out "The Landmark Hierarchy: A New Hierarchy for Routing in Very >> Large Networks"; Paul Tsuchiya; 1989. > great stuff... i have a hardcopy. is it online yet? dunno if i would say great. but certainly good. randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

mon, 17,.10.2005 kl. 11.29 -0700, Fred Baker: > OK. What you just described is akin to an enterprise network with a > default route. It's also akin to the way DNS works. No default, just one or more *potential* routes. Your input is appreciated, and yes I'm very much aware that many people who

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:03:45AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Imagine a situation with no access to any means of direct communication > > (phone etc). You've got a message to deliver to some person, and have no > > idea where to find that person. Chances are there's a group of people > > near

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> Imagine a situation with no access to any means of direct communication > (phone etc). You've got a message to deliver to some person, and have no > idea where to find that person. Chances are there's a group of people > nearby you can ask. They may know how to find the one you're looking > for.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 19.16 +0200, skrev Peter Dambier: > That reminds me of anycasting or routing issues. > > Hackers did use this technique to make use of ip addresses not > really allocated. There would be no need for IPv6 if this was > more widespread. > > How about claiming to be f.root-serv

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 15.47 +, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: > > > Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats > > clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you > > exist. The rest of the internet knows nothing

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

OK. What you just described is akin to an enterprise network with a default route. It's also akin to the way DNS works. The big question becomes not only "who knows what I need to know", but "how do I know that they actually know it?". For example, let's postulate that the concept is that

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree that the end state is 100% multihoming. I can > > certainly agree that more multihoming is coming. Many more people are > > pushing for multihoming today than in previous years, apparently telco > > instability (financial not t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

That reminds me of anycasting or routing issues. Hackers did use this technique to make use of ip addresses not really allocated. There would be no need for IPv6 if this was more widespread. How about claiming to be f.root-servers.net and setting up our own root :) Regards, Peter and Karin Da

Re: IPv6 news

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Michael! On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should > be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within > a city, providers would get a subset of the city > address block to meet their local infra

Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: > CIDR also changed allocation policies and created the notions of PA and PI > space. Hm. I guess I never thought of them as being causally related. And I remember the whole "portable/non-portable" issue as predating CIDR... I (perhaps mistak

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Paul, This is completely orthogonal to a real identifier/locator split, which would divide what we know of as the 'address' into two separate spaces, one which says "where" the node is, topologically, and one which says "who" the node is. Hmm, no idea whether it's a good idea or not, bu

Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

...the necessary evil called CIDR. evil because it locked customers into their providers, entrenched the existing large providers against future providers, and made it hard or impossible for the average endusing company to multihome. Uh, perhaps I'm being dense, but how does moving masking o

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.25 -0700, skrev Fred Baker: > is that anything like using, in Cisco terms, a "fast-switching cache" > vs a "FIB"? I'll bite as I wrote the paragraph you're quoting; Actually, hanging on to the old concepts may be more confusing than trying to look at it in completely n

Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: > ...the necessary evil called CIDR. evil because it locked customers > into their providers, entrenched the existing large providers > against future providers, and made it hard or impossible for the > average endusing company to mu

Re: IPv6 news

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:45:40AM -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > > > >Doesn't NAT, or more specifically the most commonly used, NAPT, create > >hard state within the network, which then makes it violate the > >end-to-end argument ? Also, because it has to understand transport and > >application layer

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

is that anything like using, in Cisco terms, a "fast-switching cache" vs a "FIB"? On Oct 17, 2005, at 6:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you exist. The rest

Re: IPv6 news

> so, if we had a free hand and ignored the dogmas, what would we > change about the v6 architecture to make it really deployable > and scalable and have compatibility with and a transition path > from v4 without massive kludging, complexity, and long term > cost? Isn't that GENI already out of t

Re: IPv6 news

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 14.22 +0200, skrev Jeroen Massar: > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 01:07 +1300, Simon Lyall wrote: > > > My son tells me that is what I want so I setup a payment of $5 per month > > to him. In 10 minutes from start to finish my house's /54 is "multi-homed", > > whatever that means. >

Re: IPv6 news

> > I think we need a researcher to sit down and > > figure out exactly what this would look like > > in a sample city and a sample national provider. > especially: > http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt > > will be quite of your liking. Not at all. This proposal is all about al

Re: IPv6 news

> > There are 437 cities of 1 million or more population. There are > > roughly 5,000 cities of over 100,000 population. And there are > > 3,047,000 named communities in the world. > > > > Seems to me that the number of routes in the global routing > > table should logically be closer to 5,000 t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you exist. The rest of the internet knows nothing about you, except there are mechanisms that let them "track you down" whe

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 12.55 +, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: [snip] > > MPLS on its own won't solve anything. Although MPLS has its uses, > > it smells too much like another desperate attempt from the telco-heads > > in the ITU crowd to make a packet-switched network look and behave like > > a circ

  1   2   3   4   >