On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
operating production networks.
>>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>>> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
>>> operating production networks.
>>
>> excuse me!
>
> Hi, Randy. I didn't mean to
On Feb 22, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>>> position seems to be most pronounced from
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Seriously, some people will not move until the path they are on is already
> burning, which is why they did nothing over the last 5 years despite knowing
> that the IANA pool was exhausting much faster than they had wanted to
> believe. It took gett
Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
> >> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
> >> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
> >> ope
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6 is
>> the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position seems to
>> be most pronounced from people not involved in operating production
>> networks. But
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
>> is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
>> seems to be most pronounc
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said:
> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6
> is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position
> seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating
> production networks.
"m
On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
>> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
>> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
>> operating production networks.
>
> exc
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundem...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:17 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Owen DeLong; Benson Schliesser; NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote:
>>
>>> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
>>> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
>>
>>
[ arin cesspool removed from cc: as i can not post there anyway ]
> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that
> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this
> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in
> operating production netw
On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote:
>
>> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
>> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
>
> I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagr
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote:
> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems
> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue.
I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagree
that any of those say that the problems are specific to NAT444.
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
> > That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
> > with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
>
> it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
> of
Running out of ban
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:59 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Benson Schliesser'; 'NANOG list'; 'ARIN-PPML
> List'
> Subject: Re: [ari
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
> That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
> with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
of
randy
ANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6
>> naysayer...)
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests
&
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: Benson Schliesser
> Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (w
On Feb 20, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
>> Youtube,...), but:
Actually, many facebook and youtube features will also be degraded.
>> - Less torrenting
>> - Less Net
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
> Youtube,...), but:
> - Less torrenting
> - Less Netflix watching
> - Less FTP downloads
> - Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
> You might take a hit on online gami
On Feb 20, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
>> question.
> Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
> required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Oh, I expect CGN/LSN to be connectivity of last resort, no
> question.
Ok, so let's just deploy it and not even try to fix it? Even when it is a
required functionality for IPv6-only hosts to access the IPv4 domain? That'll
go down real well with end-us
On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> So, in essence, you are advocating not to
>>> interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
>>
>> I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
>> working as it's pretty clear th
--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> So, in essence, you are advocating not to
>> interconnect the IPv4-only and IPv6-only domains in any way?
>
> I'm advocating not depending on any such interaction
> working as it's pretty clear that
> the available solution set is fairly broken.
Fair
On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
>> exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
>> out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
>> No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not meaningful
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address
> exhaustion will not result in IPv6-only hosts before we run
> out of meaningful IPv4-only hosts?
> No, but, I am willing to bet that we will not meaningfully
> make the situation better for those IPv4-only host
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
>> But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
>> element. Othe
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:48, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> I agree that it's an imperfect analogy, so I won't bother defending it. :)
> But my point remains: NAT444 is a deployment scenario, which includes a CGN
> element. Other deployment scenarios that also include a CGN element will
> ha
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>
>> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. That doesn't make it
>> accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak support
>> for claims that
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. That doesn't make it
> accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly weak support
> for claims that email would work better.
I don't think that's a great analogy. N
On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> The document is titled "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
>> Applications" and it claims to discuss NAT444 issues. However, it conflates
>> NAT444 with CGN. And it is often used a
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
>>>
>>> "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewha
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You only need to solve those problems to the
>> extent that there are meaningful things still
>> trapped in an IPv4-only world.
> Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not result in
>
On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>>
>> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
>>
>> "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to
>> analyze NAT444, but it really analy
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You only need to solve those problems to the
> extent that there are meaningful things still
> trapped in an IPv4-only world.
Are you willing to bet that IPv4 address exhaustion will not result in
IPv6-only hosts before we run out of meaningful IPv4-onl
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> Reduce, yes. Remove, no. Without a global cutoff date for the IPv6
> transition, it's not like IPv4 is going to disappear overnight. Furthermore,
> without any IPv4/IPv6 translation, the first IPv6 only networks are going to
> be awfully lon
On Feb 18, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
>> NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
>> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
>> to have to deal with these
--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of
> NAT/PAT going to be required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going
> to have to deal with these issues in any case?
> >
> No, we need to move forward
On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
>
>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
>> required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
>> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>
>> In case you have not already found this:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
>
> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote:
> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some kind of NAT/PAT going to be
> required to join the IPv4 and IPv6
> domains in all foreseeable futures? If so, aren't we going to have to deal
> with these issues in any case?
I'd compare it with bor
On 18 feb 2011, at 9:24, Zed Usser wrote:
> Basic Internet services will work (web browsing, email, Facebook,
> Youtube,...), but:
> - Less torrenting
> - Less Netflix watching
> - Less FTP downloads
> - Less video streaming in general (webcams, etc.)
You forget:
- no IPv6 tunnels
Deploying NA
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> In case you have not already found this:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list.
"draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise,
> I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444
> breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't found any valid
> ev
45 matches
Mail list logo
