On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:59:20PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Where's Noel Chiappa when you need him?
(2) The new protocol will use variable-length address for the Host
portion, such as used in the addresses of CLNP,
This also was considered during the IPv6 design phase,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets
rather than bytes, as they had a rather slippery notion of byte
(anywhere from 6 to 9 bits, often multiple sizes used *in the
same program*).
Not quite correct. Anywhere from 1 to 36 bits, and
Eugen Leitl wrote:
Except that these will be pure photonic networks, and apart from optical
delay lines for your packet buffer you'd better be able to make a routing
(switching) decision
Seriously speaking, that is the likely future as 1T
Ethernet will be impractical.
The point is to use
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the latter would be a declining percentage of
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:10:00PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Above describes your setting for the next protocol. There is not
a lot of leeway in design space, I'm afraid.
Just keep using IPv4.
Masataka Ohta
PS
See
Eugen Leitl wrote:
My (minor) beef with it is that while you offload most of
heavy lifting to photonics you still use electronics and
lookup.
Because for non linear operations, electronics is a lot
better than so linear photonics w.r.t. speed, power,
size etc.
And, it's not my idea. See 'The
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
Tom Taylor
On (2012-10-04 10:16 -0400), Tom Taylor wrote:
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
No one who offers working IP connections.
Dropping IPv6 fragments against your control-plane, that is another
discussion, but dropping them in transit would be short-lived
On 04/10/2012 10:20 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-10-04 10:16 -0400), Tom Taylor wrote:
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
No one who offers working IP connections.
Dropping IPv6 fragments against your control-plane, that is another
discussion, but dropping
Hi,
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
No one who offers working IP connections.
Dropping IPv6 fragments against your control-plane, that is another
discussion, but dropping them in transit would be short-lived exercise.
Depends on where you are looking.
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6
traffic - including non-initial fragments - directed towards point-to-point
links, loopbacks, and
On 10/4/12 7:36 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6
traffic - including non-initial fragments - directed
On 10/4/12 1:31 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:58 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Likewise with the acl I have the property that the initial packet has
all the info in it while the fragment does not.
For iACLs, just filter non-initial fragments directed to infrastructure IPs.
Cisco Juniper ACLs have ACL matching criteria
Hi,
If anyone from XO/Concentric is on on the list or anyone has a technical
contact who can help with connectivity issues to their hosted Web-sites,
please pass this along to the right person/team or respond to me off-list.
Some of our customers are having problems connecting to
On 10/4/12 8:15 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:58 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Likewise with the acl I have the property that the initial packet has
all the info in it while the fragment does not.
For iACLs, just filter non-initial fragments directed to infrastructure IPs. Cisco
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell ch...@ctcampbell.com wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
I've heard Vint Cerf say this himself, but here's a written reference
for you. They had just finished building
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
I'd be a lot happier if there were fewer.
thanks
joel
On Oct 4, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6
traffic - including non-initial fragments -
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
I'd be a lot happier if there were fewer.
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once host identifiers are no longer dependent on or related to topology,
there's no reason a reasonable fixed-length cannot suffice.
Host identities should be cryptographic hashes of public keys, so you have
to support algorithm agility, which probably
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:57:34, Johnny Eriksson said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets
rather than bytes, as they had a rather slippery notion of byte
(anywhere from 6 to 9 bits, often multiple sizes used *in the
same
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing to
accept this prefix from AS4847.
that took longer than expected.
the internet has failed my expectations.
Hi, Joel,
On 10/04/2012 10:58 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
So the thing I'd note is that stateless IPV6 ACLs or load balancing
provide you with an interesting problem since a fragment does not
contain the headers beyond the required unfragmentable headers.
In the real world, such packets are not
Hi,
There was a thread on Nanog in January about TOR and deep buffers
(http://seclists.org/nanog/2012/Jan/966). I have a follow-up,
related question.
Has anyone used a TOR switch to aggregate connections to from major
network providers? For example, 2 or more 10GE ingress connections
On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Once host identifiers are no longer dependent on or related to topology,
there's no reason a reasonable fixed-length cannot suffice.
Host identities should be cryptographic hashes of public
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have learned our lesson and done two things:
(1) Stopped mixing
On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
will have
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
Or did you mean use DNS as it fits in the current system, which
In message c7e7de67-f668-45b4-9d64-2058400dc...@doubleshotsecurity.com, Merik
e Kaeo writes:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
=20
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
=20
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
=20
iACLs
Fernando Gont wrote:
In the real world, such packets are not legitimate, so feel free to drop
them. draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain formally addresses this issue.
The ID misses the problem of 4-6 translator.
That is, though the ID state:
Entire IPv6 header chain:
All protocol
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits is bits. They're even structured so you
can route on the network portion etc.
In message 20590.7539.491575.455...@world.std.com, Barry Shein writes:
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 05 October 2012 12:04 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than
- Original Message -
From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just
doing away with IP addresses entirely, and DNS.
Why not just use host names directly as addresses? Bits is bits, FQDNs
are integers because, um, bits is
36 matches
Mail list logo
