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
...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
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
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
I'm also undecided about how I feel about the extra packets caused by the (I
forget the official term) discovery packets for shim6 for an end site with
say a hundred machines each with thousands of short lived TCP sessions.
The shim6 capability detection
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> Christopher,
>
(chris is fine, silly corp email doesn't let us have sane addresses :( )
> On Oct 14, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >> You know, if you describe it that way too many times, people who are
> >> only paying half-attenti
# > if all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
#
# I guess the question was what is the problem IPng was supposed to solve?
that depends on who you ask. the pet problem i was dealing with at the time
was the necessary evil called CIDR. necessary because infinite routing ta
On Oct 14, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
(shouldn't that be [EMAIL PROTECTED] now?)
Not quite yet... :-)
if all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I guess the question was what is the problem IPng was supposed to solve?
Christopher,
On Oct 14, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
You know, if you describe it that way too many times, people who are
only paying half-attention are going to say "IPv6 has something
almost
like NAT, only different".
you know... shim6 could make 'source address' pointles
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:39:58 +0200, Daniel Roesen said:
>
> > Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
> > globally routed. Seperating topology from identification.
> >
> > Something I didn't see discussed yet is that shim6
On Oct 14, 2005, at 3:33 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
No. The kicker is that the applications needs no such smarts and
shim6 will take care of this for all applications on the system on
the network level.
Not directly aimed at William: As others have said before (and I
finally listened)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> Joe (or anyone else),
> On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> > The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
> > since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
> > PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
(shouldn't that be [EMAIL PROTECTED] now?)
If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else
is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented
in any near term timeframe and
Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
Actually, doing multihoming and getting PI space are orthogonal in
shim6 last I knew. That is, you could get address space from your N
providers and have one of the providers, say Provider X, to be the
ULID for t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
(shouldn't that be [EMAIL PROTECTED] now?)
> If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else
> is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented
> in any near term timeframe and it will take a very long time for
Seems like it might be a good time to update everyone on
the IAB IPv6 Multi-homing BOF we're holding Monday
afternoon at NANOG. My very draft introduction slides are
on http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/talks/NANOG35/multihoming.
Dave
pgpNenCFArWcU.pgp
Descriptio
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:11:18PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> Actually, doing multihoming and getting PI space are orthogonal in
> shim6 last I knew. That is, you could get address space from your N
> providers and have one of the providers, say Provider X, to be the
> ULID for the end points. Sh
Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:27:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the kicker here is that the applications then need some
serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally r
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:39:58 +0200, Daniel Roesen said:
> Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
> globally routed. Seperating topology from identification.
>
> Something I didn't see discussed yet is that shim6 sites would need to
> get a globally unique, provider ind
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:33:51PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
> >>>impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
> >>>but rather a _node_ multihoming sol
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:27:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the kicker here is that the applications then need some
> serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
globally routed. Seperating topology
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my impression incorrect?
There is no shortage of rough corners to file down
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:19:27PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> >On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> >Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
> >impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
> >but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-Oct-2005, at 15:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
BTW, as I read it, SHIM6 requires not only modification to ALL
nodes at the
site,
but, modification to ALL nodes to which the node needs reliable
connectivity.
For one host with multiple, globally-u
On 14-Oct-2005, at 14:48, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for
e
BTW, as I read it, SHIM6 requires not only modification to ALL nodes at the
site,
but, modification to ALL nodes to which the node needs reliable
connectivity.
In other words, SHIM6 is not fully useful until it is fully ubiquitous in
virtually
all IPv6 stacks.
Owen
--On October 14, 2005 11:48:2
Joe (or anyone else),
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites,
since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on
PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end
sites.
Since shim6 req
26 matches
Mail list logo
