On 15-nov-04, at 23:10, Adi Linden wrote:
Aren't unique site locals associated with the mac address?
Not really. Unique site local addresses as such don't have anything to
do with MAC addresses. However, most IPv6 addresses (including,
presumably, unique site locals when they are deployed) contai
> > About half of the devices within my on private network are statically
> > defined and for local use only. They will never need global access.
> > Because they are awkward to configure I do not want to renumber, ever.
> > My
> > solution is to use RFC1918 address space for this network.
>
> Use
--On torsdag 11 november 2004 09.36 -0600 Adi Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> RFC1918 address space is free and plentiful for my purposes. It is
> provider independent. It is globally unique in the sense that no other
> publically routed network is using them. My globally unique address will
>
On 11-nov-04, at 16:36, Adi Linden wrote:
What are my options today to obtain ip address space? My requirements
are
well met by a /27 subnet. ARIN won't give me a globally unique /27 for
personal use. So the /27 comes from my service provider, which has
several
caveats. I cannot multi-home. I can
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:01:36 EST, Leo Bicknell said:
> Having to double the size of every ACL in your network (once for
> the local address, once for the "public" address) does not seem
> simpler. It also seems dangerous, since almost all devices have a
> limit to ACL size. As if larger addresse
On 11 Nov 2004, at 15:01, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:16:04AM -0800, Tony
Hain wrote:
The existence of the address space does not require nat. Being stuck
in the
mindset where there is only one address on an interface leads people
to
believe that nat is a
In a message written on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 11:16:04AM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> The existence of the address space does not require nat. Being stuck in the
> mindset where there is only one address on an interface leads people to
> believe that nat is an automatic result local addresses. Assignin
Randy Bush wrote:
> > I see this a lot recently: You are mixing up RfC1918 and NAT.
> >
> > If I have globally unique addresses I can NAT them as well
> > as 10/8. One has nothing to do with the other.
> >
> > Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply
> > that I have to
> What are my options today to obtain ip address space? My requirements are
> well met by a /27 subnet. ARIN won't give me a globally unique /27 for
> personal use.
in ipv6, you'll get a /32 or whatever is in fashion this week.
that should do you just fine.
randy
> I see this a lot recently: You are mixing up RfC1918 and NAT.
>
> If I have globally unique addresses I can NAT them as well
> as 10/8. One has nothing to do with the other.
>
> Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply
> that I have to have RfC1918 to be able to d
My AFS, Kerberos, and active FTP sessions think that you are being very,
very optimistic about the usability of non-unique adresses and kludgy
middleboxen who think they understand networking.
Don't forget IPSec, and Cisco skinny IP telephone protocol, and of course
more importantly, my half-life
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:36 -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
> > Having to NAT RfC1918 addresses to reach the internet, does not imply
> > that I have to have RfC1918 to be able to do NAT.
>
> What are my options today to obtain ip address space? My requirements are
> well met by a /27 subnet. ARIN won'
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:00:04AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
> > let me make sure i understand this. in order not to have to
> > pay for the address space for a my enterprise's pri
> > There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
> > assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
> > and statically configured ip numbering. RFC1918 addresses are perfect. NAT
> > allows this network to be connected through any provider(
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:18:49PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
> There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
> assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
> and statically configured ip numbering. RFC1918 addresses are perfect. NAT
> all
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
> > distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :
>
> actually, i think you happen to be one of the maybe 25% of
> participants in this discussion that is an actual operator
> I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
> distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :
actually, i think you happen to be one of the maybe 25% of
participants in this discussion that is an actual operator
on a real network. rarer and rarer. :-(
and if
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >>That's odd, I didn't think routing to Null0 (or equivalent) was all that
> >>taxing, I don't want an ACL, I want it gone in the cheapest, fastest way
> >>possible.
> >
> >that's odd... routing is a DESTINATION based problem
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
"Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. " -
Simon J. Lyall.
Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
> "Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. " -
> Simon J. Lyall.
>
> Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
> are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose not to.
> We receive
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:51:10AM +0200, Hank
> Nussbacher wrote:
> > Perhaps Nokia wants to make cellphones with a fixed IPv6 number - as it
> > leaves the factory? -Hank
>
> However, if you can get addresses for free, and the
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
>
> let me make sure i understand this. in order not to have to
> pay for the address space for a my enterprise's printers,
> they are supposed to make separate ether runs to them
> parallel
since this is a few days late on the conversation someone might have said
this but
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 8-nov-04, at 23:15, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >> Well, if they can manage to interconnect all those networks a tiny
> >> amount of coordination isn't too much to
First of all, as one of the proponents of ULAs in the IPv6 WG, I want to
emphatically state that enabling IPv6 NAT was not the justification for
ULAs. It might make doing so easier, which is unfortunate, but there are
lots of other reasons that justify their creation and not creating ULAs is
u
--On måndag 8 november 2004 17.18 -0600 Adi Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RFC1918 addresses are perfect.
My AFS, Kerberos, and active FTP sessions think that you are being very,
very optimistic about the usability of non-unique adresses and kludgy
middleboxen who think they understand ne
--On tisdag 9 november 2004 16.32 + Alex Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On 09 November 2004 11:09 -0500 Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have to believe if the code can do IPv4-IPv6
>> NAT
>
> I want to see IPv4-IPv4 NAT working first...
With sufficent thrust, pigs fly j
Ray Plzak wrote:
> ... This is a valuable discussion but to a large extent
> the efforts can be considered as a non input into the working group as the
> discussion is not on their mail list. The IETF works best when people
> directly contribute to the discussion and consensus building process.
> If IPv6 had "local scope" addresses, then NAT would not be
> necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
> unauthorized link.
yes. just like we see no 1918 leakage now.
randy
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > and do explain how a user coming in with their laptop and
> > dialing a provider is gonna be affected by your nat
>
> If IPv6 had "local scope" addresses, then NAT would not be
> necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
>
> and do explain how a user coming in with their laptop and
> dialing a provider is gonna be affected by your nat
If IPv6 had "local scope" addresses, then NAT would not be
necessary to prevent traffic from flowing through the
unauthorized link. I know that the IETF has deprecated
local scope add
This thread was started by Leo Bicknell on Mon Nov 08 14:28:16 2004. The
original post stated:
"The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 "private networks". Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined for
the IPv6 world. Those two drafts can be found at
On 10-nov-04, at 0:00, Leo Bicknell wrote:
with the protocols still designed to work over IPv4 NAT, and the
complexity of IPv6 NAT being roughly "s/long/long long/g" (yes,
simplified, but you get my point) and recompiling your NAT code,
I'm not sure what will be the barrier to IPv6 NAT.
The main pr
- Original Message -
From: "Paul G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I see I almost started an argument here. This was not my intention.
Data from unconnected sockets only: Udp and icmp messages (unreachable
etc).
that's great. on behalf of everyone who's ever had the joy of
troubleshooting connectiv
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Paul G") writes:
>
> &g
- Original Message -
From: "Jørgen Hovland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Paul G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
all jokes aside, 1918 allows for use of 1918 space in a private network or
a
'private internet [sic]' comprised of any such number of private networks
as
agree to interconnect and cooperate in routing traffic sourced from and
dest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Paul G") writes:
> all jokes aside, 1918 allows for use of 1918 space in a private network
> or a 'private internet [sic]' comprised of any such number of private
> networks as agree to interconnect and cooperate in routing traffic
> sourced from and destined to said space. it
- Original Message -
From: "Jørgen Hovland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Network.Security" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>
> For the record, we use 1918 address range on several of our public routers
> meaning you will get legitimate traffic from this address space, atleast
> from us unless you are filtering it (which is of course all your decision).
> Filtering any type of traffic at all by a transit provider with
- Original Message -
From: "Network.Security" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2004-11-09-17:10:02, "Network.Security" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the 1918
space destined for our network coming from one of our normally
respectable Tie
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
As long as IPv4 exists, which I predict will be a long time, the
"protocol designers" which are really application developers for
your purposes, will write to the lowest common denominator. [...]
So with the protocols still designed to work over IPv4 NAT, [..
On 9-nov-04, at 17:27, Leo Bicknell wrote:
My comment here was directed at the unregistered variant. You'll
notice the math in the paper assumes each company coming to the
table has a single IPv6 unregistered prefix.
My statement is that math does not reflect reality. Consider when
Cisco wants t
In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:46:49PM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
> However, there is plenty of address space in IPv6 to go NATless, so
> protocol desingers and implementers are unlikey to add NAT workarounds
> for IPv6. This means it's very unlikely that applications th
On 9-nov-04, at 17:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Indeed, NAT is being pushed by some vendors as a migration tool
from IPv4 to IPv6. I have to believe if the code can do IPv4-IPv6
NAT, then doing IPv6 NAT to IPv6 NAT would be trivial.
There is a very big difference about NAT in IPv4 and NAT in IPv6,
tho
On 2004-11-09-17:10:02, "Network.Security" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the 1918
> space destined for our network coming from one of our normally
> respectable Tier 1 ISP's (three letter acronym, starts with 'M', ends
> with 'CI').
>
"Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. " -
Simon J. Lyall.
Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose not to.
We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
And I bet someone will then think of a good reason why each product would
then need a /64. :-)
You use the 64 less significant bits for things like serial number and
good-before date? 1/2 :)
Pete
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:14:51 EST, Jerry Eyers said:
> "Get a firewall" is not a valid response when you have lusers
> to drop the latest netgear whatever onto their PC and dial
> to some provider somewhere. Your firewall is useless to
> protect that segment. In many cases NAT is the ONLY
> prote
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jerry Eyers wrote:
> I have devices that have no need, never will have a need, to ever
> talk outside of the internal networks, nor do I want some
> brain dead user to drop some stupid little device on the network
> and tada, route access to some of my inside network simply be
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:17:41AM -0500, Jerry Eyers wrote:
>
> Ok, let me throw some cold reality water on this discussion...
...
> in the UK, the largest 'chemist' in the UK, built the largest
> website in the world (2.4 million cc transactions/month with over 460
> servers) and coordinated
> "Get a firewall" is not a valid response when you have lusers
> to drop the latest netgear whatever onto their PC and dial
> to some provider somewhere. Your firewall is useless to
> protect that segment. In many cases NAT is the ONLY
> protection you end up with in this scenario, a scenario
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 03:14:51AM -0500, Jerry Eyers wrote:
> "Get a firewall" is not a valid response when you have lusers
> to drop the latest netgear whatever onto their PC and dial
> to some provider somewhere. Your firewall is useless to
> protect that segment. In many cases NAT is the
nario that
is far to common in the corporate world.
Jerry
---Original Message---
From: Theo de Whaat
Date: 11/09/04 15:28:44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
Get a firewall. You shouldn't rely on NAT to provide this
func
> I have devices that have no need, never will have a need, to ever
> talk outside of the internal networks, nor do I want some
> brain dead user to drop some stupid little device on the network
> and tada, route access to some of my inside network simply because
> the addresses are valid. I want
At 11:17 AM 11/9/2004, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> > In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
So I'm not allowed to send stuff to my printers at home or in the office, to
be picked up by my wife, or a colleague, wherever I am on the Internet?
That's fine, if that's what network polic
Ok, let me throw some cold reality water on this discussion...
Having built the IP network for the second largest supermarket
in the US, worked on the networks for the largest supermarket
in the UK, the largest 'chemist' in the UK, built the largest
website in the world (2.4 million cc transacti
> Almost more interesting is consider the "financial interchange
> network" where 100 companies come together each with 20 networks.
> I believe even with that relatively small number of networks (2000
> total) the probability of collision is well more than 50%.
My company already does this (fina
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:51:10AM +0200, Hank
> Nussbacher wrote:
> > Perhaps Nokia wants to make cellphones with a fixed IPv6 number - as it
> > leaves the factory? -Hank
>
> It was relayed to me that at least one group was a
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 11:09 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:55:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar
> wrote:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt
> >
> > That contains most of the answers to your questions ;)
>
> Not really.
--On 09 November 2004 11:09 -0500 Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to believe if the code can do IPv4-IPv6
NAT
I want to see IPv4-IPv4 NAT working first...
Alex
:-> "Simon" == Simon Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
> So I'm not allowed to send stuff to my printers at home or in the office,
to
> be picked up by my wife, or a colleague, wherever I am on the Internet?
>
In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:51:10AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher
wrote:
> Perhaps Nokia wants to make cellphones with a fixed IPv6 number - as it
> leaves the factory? -Hank
It was relayed to me that at least one group was asking about using
IPv6 addresses to replace UPC codes,
In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:17:30AM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
> If both companies use either registered globally unique space (which
> also has the important property you get to know who the packets come
> from when they show up in the wrong places) or use the unr
> > In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
So I'm not allowed to send stuff to my printers at home or in the office, to
be picked up by my wife, or a colleague, wherever I am on the Internet?
You should be careful not to try and apply local policies to a global network.
Sim
In a message written on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:55:51AM +0100, Jeroen Massar
wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt
>
> That contains most of the answers to your questions ;)
Not really. It explains to me what a group of people would like
to see happen.
> In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
let me make sure i understand this. in order not to have to
pay for the address space for a my enterprise's printers,
they are supposed to make separate ether runs to them
parallel to all the workgroup runs, so they can route them
fun
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hank Nussbacher) [Tue 09 Nov 2004, 09:18 CET]:
> I think you need to look at one of the authors - Nokia. Perhaps
> 2001:490::/32 and 3FFE:8130::/28 are not enough for what they have in
> mind. Perhaps someone from RIPE should sit down with Nokia (and
> perhaps all the othe
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hank Nussbacher) [Tue 09 Nov 2004, 10:53 CET]:
> Perhaps Nokia wants to make cellphones with a fixed IPv6 number - as it
> leaves the factory? -Hank
They could implement such an insane plan with a /64 until long after
32-bit time_t rolls over.
-- Niels.
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 11:51 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 09:43 AM 09-11-04 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps someone from RIPE should sit down with Nokia (and perhaps=20
> > > all the other cell makers) and find out what they truly want and why thes=
> >e=20
> > > IETF drafts sol
At 09:43 AM 09-11-04 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Perhaps someone from RIPE should sit down with Nokia (and perhaps=20
> all the other cell makers) and find out what they truly want and why thes=
e=20
> IETF drafts solve their problem. Perhaps just giving them what they want=
=20
> (and think t
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 10:09 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 02:25 PM 08-11-04 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> >More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
> >enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
> >they (think) they want with little concern for how it
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> And there's still the registered variant.
>
> >No, my argument is that it only takes a few stupid people to make
> >this entire system not work at all.
>
> I don't see this.
.. people to not use the hashing.
> >If this draft had a chance of
On 8-nov-04, at 23:42, Daniel Senie wrote:
Setting up local v6 addressing for this reason seems like a bad idea
because there is no NAT and no global connectivity, so the box will
need some automated configuration protocol in any case.
Autoconfiguration is probably not the answer to every piece
On 8-nov-04, at 23:15, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Well, if they can manage to interconnect all those networks a tiny
amount of coordination isn't too much to ask for. Also, with the
proper
hashing this shouldn't be much of a problem even without coordination.
Yes, no coordination and bad hashing won't w
At 02:25 PM 08-11-04 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the
global Internet.
I think you need to look at one of the auth
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 14:53 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley
> wrote:
> > Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is
> > needed?
>
> I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
> tha
> I'm not sure why the proposal wouldn't block off some space to
> cover "unforseen" circumstances and leave it at that.
uh, 7/8 of the ipv6 space is currently blocked off for unforseen
circumstances. like a place to move after we have made as much
of a bleedin' mess of fp=001 as we have of ipv
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:14 AM
> To: Daniel Senie
> Cc: Randy Bush; kent crispin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>
>
>
On 8 Nov 2004, at 22:53, Daniel Senie wrote:
Is it SO hard for people to understand that it's possible today to use
private address space and public address space in a network WITHOUT
using NAT?
I think the hard thing to understand is why you would bother using 1918
space if you didn't have to.
[snip]
> I dont understand much about ipv6. Yes I am now internationaly
> recognized for the ipv6 noob and loser that I am.
>
> What I do know is that ostensibly we need it due to address shortage.
> Its also easy to see that a entire trainload of new technology has been
> hitched up to that w
At 10:10 PM 11/8/2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large
> the total space is or what the size of the routing table is. What
> matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address
> space, and what you need to use it for.
> To the end user of address space it is absolutely irrelevant how large
> the total space is or what the size of the routing table is. What
> matters is how much cost/effort you need to expend to get your address
> space, and what you need to use it for. A guarantee of global
> uniqueness has a
> 2) There is a cost associated with assigning globally-unique space no
> matter how you do it. This cost could be too high for some application --
> RFC-1918-style space is free.
you want unique space but not pay for the administration
of it. absolutely brilliant.
> 3) There is a c
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:25:00PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
> enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
> they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the
> global Internet.
Well, thinking ab
> Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is
> needed?
If we could assign every entity who wanted one sufficient non-routable,
globally unique space, we wouldn't need 1918-style space. There are,
however, three problems with this approach:
1) It encourages
Hay,
Daniel Roesen wrote:
[...]
Personally, I just wait for people to realize that they won't be
able to force people into provider lock-in, allow one PI prefix per
AS and THEN things can go off. With that, the global IPv6 table
would be around 18k routes btw. As IPv4 and ASN are virtually
unrestri
On 8 Nov 2004, at 18:18, Adi Linden wrote:
I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be
deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses.
[one reasonable use]
Yes, I mentioned that in the paragrap
> I don't know of any applications that require RFC1918 addresses to be
> deployed. (Clearly, this is not to say there are none.)
There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
and statically co
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:56:58PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
> To all of us happily using ip4 does ipv6 offer anything valuable other
> than more space?
Depends on who you are.
> Do net admins who dread troubleshooting real networks with
> unrecognizable and unmemorizable addresses exist?
Actu
Leo Bicknell wrote:
I would like to bring to the attention of Nanog an IPv6 policy issue
that I think is slipping under the radar right now.
The IETF IPv6 working group is considering two proposals right now
for IPv6 "private networks". Think RFC-1918 type space, but redefined
for the IPv6 world.
At 04:17 PM 11/8/2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
Reason #1: Lab use. People should NEVER, EVER pick random space from
public space for doing experiments in the lab. Sooner or later something
leaks, and people get really honked off. This happened a LOT with IPv4,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ted Hardie writes:
>At 3:37 PM -0500 11/8/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>In
>>That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
>>In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by
>>the IESG.
>>
>
>
>With due respect to my colleague Steve, I thin
In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 10:46:48PM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
> Well, if they can manage to interconnect all those networks a tiny
> amount of coordination isn't too much to ask for. Also, with the proper
> hashing this shouldn't be much of a problem even without coo
> is very unwise. One of the problems with site local was the prefix got
> allocated but the work on what it would mean never got full community
> support. Doing the same thing twice just strikes me as dumb.
do you mean 1918 twice or site-loco twice? both are stoopid.
either is stoopid. it'll
At 3:37 PM -0500 11/8/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In
That said, see draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt
In not very different form, it's likely to be approved soon by
the IESG.
With due respect to my colleague Steve, I think this depends on what "not very
different from" means. I'm current
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Gauthier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I must admint, I'm really not up on the more subtle aspects
> of v6 addressing
> nor have
On 8-nov-04, at 20:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I will post a very brief summary of my objections, for the first
(unique-local):
- I believe the math is wrong on the rate of collisions, primarily
because it assumes in a large organization there is a central
coordination function to pick an
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:25:00PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
> enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
> they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the
> global Internet.
Well, thinking abo
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:22:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> let me see if i understand. you propose a technical cluster
> with which we are already horrifyingly familiar to fix
> an administrative problem? have i got it right?
No, you didn't. I didn't propose anything, and especially not NAT
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Leo Bicknell writes:
>
>
>
>
>In a message written on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:36:21PM -0500, Joe Abley wr=
>ote:
>> Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is=20
>> needed?
>
>I think people have found many good uses for IPv4 1918 space, and
>
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
