Owen DeLong wrote:
As a result, you are properly rewarded to make a fool of
yourself in public.
If I have, it certainly won’t be the first time.
Enjoy it, if you can. PERIOD.
Masataka Ohta
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 15:10 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >> It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all.
>
> > Really, it's not, but I know you like to feel smug and
> > superior, so enjoy that.
>
> Are you saying you are so great that only the greatest can
> b
Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all.
> Really, it's not, but I know you like to feel smug and
> superior, so enjoy that.
Are you saying you are so great that only the greatest can
be superior to you, which must be enjoyable?
Then, you are wrong.
You shoul
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:38 PM wrote:
> On October 8, 2019 at 12:04 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM wrote:
> > My main point is, as I said, Bits is Bits, whether they're human
> > readable (for some value of "human") like URLs or long hex str
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:08 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> On October 8, 2019 at 23:51 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> (responding to my P.S.)
>
>>P.S. My prediction?
>>
>>The world's major telcos et al, having had enough of various problems,
>>from address exhaustion to
On October 8, 2019 at 23:51 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
(responding to my P.S.)
> P.S. My prediction?
>
> The world's major telcos et al, having had enough of various problems,
> from address exhaustion to non-stop security disasters, and the
> chaotic responses, p
>> You’re selecting a very limited subset of ICMP that happens to
>> contain a portion of a packet that happens to contain a port
>> number (or two).
>
> It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all.
Really, it’s not, but I know you like to feel smug and superior, so enjoy that.
> See abov
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:51:12 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Yes, thanks for yet another condescending comment proving that
> > you completely missed the point of my post. It's always a pleasure.
> You should really feel indebted to me because it's not a pleasure
> for me to a
Owen DeLong wrote:
Why do you think ICMP any different?
Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in
ICMPv4 error packets contain port numbers just after IP headers.
Show me the port number in a type 8 or type 0 packet.
First 8 bytes of data field can be used as 4 byte source and
>> I’m betting that not all of the WWW addresses go to the same ASN.
>
> Perhaps you have noticed in your vast travels that domain names'
> significance is generally read right to left not left to right like IP
> addresses?
Sure, but I’m betting that trying to aggregate routing around COM. would
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 09:48 , Michel Py wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> I’m not sure how giving them DNS names makes them less resilient to DNS
>> failures.
>
> How do you resolve the IP address of the PBX ? I hard-code (in the master
> config).
Usually, i have sufficiently resilient DNS
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 02:29 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> Separation between address and port is vague.
>> Explain that to ICMP packets.
>
> Why do you think ICMP any different?
>
> Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in
> ICMPv4 error packets contai
Nicholas Warren wrote:
It's not 1990 any more, a TB of RAM now costs a few thousand dollars
Maybe.
and is dropping rapidly (similar for fancy router RAM),
Definitely not. It's not 2010 any more.
Masataka Ohta
William Herrin wrote:
The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts can
confirm IP address is true by 3 way handshaking.
Yeah, but that touches one of the central flaws of the design of IP,
v4 and v6.
We are talking about design of TCP, not IP.
No part of identifying and auth
On October 8, 2019 at 19:12 nwar...@barryelectric.com (Nicholas Warren) wrote:
> Sweet deals, would you kindly share your vendor?
>
>
> It's not 1990 any more, a TB of RAM now costs a few thousand dollars
> and is dropping rapidly (similar for fancy router RAM), we have
> processor chips
On October 8, 2019 at 12:04 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM wrote:
>
> My main point is, as I said, Bits is Bits, whether they're human
> readable (for some value of "human") like URLs or long hex strings
> which perhaps are less human r
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:12:30 -, Nicholas Warren said:
> Sweet deals, would you kindly share your vendor?
Well, I just type "128G DIMM" into google, and the very first hit tells me that
I can
get a 128G DIMM for $1,398, that and 8 DiMM slots gets me to 1T just over $11K.
If I have 16 DIMM sl
Sweet deals, would you kindly share your vendor?
It's not 1990 any more, a TB of RAM now costs a few thousand dollars
and is dropping rapidly (similar for fancy router RAM), we have
processor chips with 64 cores available practically off the shelf for
under $10K (32-core literally off the shelf,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 PM wrote:
> My main point is, as I said, Bits is Bits, whether they're human
> readable (for some value of "human") like URLs or long hex strings
> which perhaps are less human readable.
>
Bits aren't just bits. Bits with useful properties (such as aggregability
whic
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:59 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
> > If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiate
> > the link with a name (e.g. dns name),
>
> The point of TCP use IP address for identification is hosts
> can confirm IP address is
On October 7, 2019 at 23:13 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 2019, at 20:16 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well if you all really want your heads to explode I was invited to
> > give a talk a few years ago in Singapore at the local HackerSpace.
> >
> >
On October 8, 2019 at 03:00 michel...@tsisemi.com (Michel Py) wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote :
> > Well… I don’t run into this very often any more, but I guess if you have a
> > poorly run DNS environment, it might be more of an issue.
>
> About half of my devices, including all the VOIP pho
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> I’m not sure how giving them DNS names makes them less resilient to DNS
> failures.
How do you resolve the IP address of the PBX ? I hard-code (in the master
config).
The PBX does not have a DNS name. I want my support staff to know its IP on the
top of their head.
DNS
Owen DeLong wrote:
Separation between address and port is vague.
Explain that to ICMP packets.
Why do you think ICMP any different?
Just as usual IP packets, inner IP packets contained in
ICMPv4 error packets contain port numbers just after IP headers.
Moreover, unlike stupid ICMPv6, ICMPv
> On Oct 7, 2019, at 23:59 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> William Herrin wrote:
>
>>> I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P,
>>> which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is
>>> better.
>
>> Not a fan of port numbers.
>
> Separation bet
William Herrin wrote:
I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P,
which is obviously fully operational with existing IPv4 backbone, is
better.
Not a fan of port numbers.
Separation between address and port is vague.
If we're going to replace TCP and UDP, initiat
> On Oct 7, 2019, at 20:16 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> Well if you all really want your heads to explode I was invited to
> give a talk a few years ago in Singapore at the local HackerSpace.
>
> It called for something creative and different, not really an IETF
> sort of crowd.
>
> So I
> On Oct 7, 2019, at 20:00 , Michel Py wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> Well… I don’t run into this very often any more, but I guess if you have a
>> poorly run DNS environment, it might be more of an issue.
>
> About half of my devices, including all the VOIP phones, do not have DNS. I
>
Well if you all really want your heads to explode I was invited to
give a talk a few years ago in Singapore at the local HackerSpace.
It called for something creative and different, not really an IETF
sort of crowd.
So I proposed we dump numeric addresses entirely and use basically
URLs in IP p
Folks should be aware that if you do not assume extreme pressure (which
is what it is taking to get IPv6 deployed), it turns out to be quite
hard to get the deployment incentives and structures for a
map-and-encaps scheme to actually work for Internet-wide deployment. It
does work for a range
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> Well… I don’t run into this very often any more, but I guess if you have a
> poorly run DNS environment, it might be more of an issue.
About half of my devices, including all the VOIP phones, do not have DNS. I
just cannot afford to lose the phones if there is a DNS failu
> William Herrin wrote :
> I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory,
> would start working as a result of software
> upgrades alone, needing no configuration changes or other operator
> intervention. If I couldn't do that, my debate
> opponent was right -- a gree
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 18:02 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It certainly would have been a higher level of pain in the short run,
> but it also would have led to a much shorter period of pain.
There's a thing in (biological) evolution that says a species cannot
become less fit, even if that is the bes
> On Oct 5, 2019, at 13:36 , b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>>
>> OK… Let’s talk about how?
>>
>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that onl
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:31 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>
> > I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in
> theory,
> > would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no
> > configuration changes or
William Herrin wrote:
I was out to prove a point. I needed a technique that, at least in theory,
would start working as a result of software upgrades alone, needing no
configuration changes or other operator intervention.
I think TCPng/UDPng with 32/48 bit port numbers combined with NAT/A+P,
w
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:32 PM Michel Py wrote:
> >> Michel Py wrote :
> >> When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how
long ago.
>
> > William Herrin wrote :
> > 2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread
titled "The myth of IPv6-IPv4 interoperat
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> When did you write this ? I read it before, just can't remember how long ago.
> William Herrin wrote :
> 2007. Half of IPv6's lifetime ago. It came out of an ARIN PPML thread titled
> "The myth of IPv6-IPv4 interoperation."
> On one side of the argument, folks saying that
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:34 AM Michel Py wrote:
> > William Herrin wrote :
> > I want to divert from the current flame war to make my biennial
semi-serious reminder that it was at least theoretically possible to
> > expand the IPv4 address space rather than make a whole new protocol.
That we did
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 05:58:39PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> 8.8.4.5.13.9/40
> 8.8.4.5.17.168/40
>
This is so unreadable to me :/
My brain keeps on wondering if this is an "IPv4+" or a phone number or a typo...
> William Herrin wrote :
> I want to divert from the current flame war to make my biennial semi-serious
> reminder that it was at least theoretically possible to
> expand the IPv4 address space rather than make a whole new protocol. That we
> did not do so was a failure of imagination.
> http://b
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:48 PM Michel Py wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote :
> > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands
> 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit
> address?
>
> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
>
I want to diver
I think we're basically on the same page. But what I described
wouldn't use port numbers to fake extended addressing, just a flag and
some extra IP header for the extended addr bits.
On October 6, 2019 at 21:12 li...@packetflux.com (Forrest Christian (List
Account)) wrote:
> I've been ignoring
I didn't quite say nothing would need to be changed, only that the
changes would be by and large very minimal, some new cases in the
existing IPv4 stacks, rather than an entirely new stack. Particularly
for hosts, if this bit (flag, whatever) is set be sure to copy the
entire IP packet into your
On 10/7/2019 7:37 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to
the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's
dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically worthl
On 10/7/19 4:37 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
>> Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to
>> the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's
>> dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to
> the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's
> dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically worthless.
Riddle me this: Why then have spamme
On 10/7/2019 2:03 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed
many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way
forward we have.
A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you.
Lik
Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed
many years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way
forward we have.
A problem is that there is a cliff edge in front of you.
But, assuming you're expanding the address space,
I've been ignoring this discussion because I feel this ship sailed many
years ago, and IPv6, like it or hate it, is the best way forward we have.
But, assuming you're expanding the address space, the simplest solution is
to add the additional bits addresses at the end.
I.E. every existing /32 get
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 17:47:24 -0400, b...@theworld.com said:
> All a strictly IPv4 only host/router would need to understand in that
> case is the IHL, which it does already, and how to interpret whatever
> flag/option is used to indicate the presence of additional address
> bits mostly to ignore i
On October 6, 2019 at 16:35 jhellent...@dataix.net (J. Hellenthal) wrote:
> And in which part of the header is this to be added ?
I assume you mean the additional address. The IHL provides for up to
60 bytes of IP header length. 20 bytes is needed for the usual IPv4
header so an additional 40 b
And in which part of the header is this to be added ?
--
J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> On Oct 6, 2019, at 15:58, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
>> On October 6, 2019 at 15:18 mpal...@hezmatt.
On October 6, 2019 at 15:18 mpal...@hezmatt.org (Matt Palmer) wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:36:50PM -0400, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> >
> > On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> > >
> > > OK… Let’s talk about how?
> > >
> > > How would you have mad
>>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
>>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
>> Which is not possible with the current IPv
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:36:50PM -0400, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
> On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
> >
> > OK… Let’s talk about how?
> >
> > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands
> 32-bit addresses to exchange traffic with
On October 4, 2019 at 15:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>
> OK… Let’s talk about how?
>
> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
A bit in the header or similar (vers
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 20:23 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 4, 2019, at 16:48 , Michel Py wrote:
>>
>>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
>>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 16:48 , Michel Py wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong wrote :
>> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
>> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>
> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
> Which is not p
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:48:33PM +, Michel Py wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote :
> > How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
> > addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
>
> With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
That w
> Owen DeLong wrote :
> How would you have made it possible for a host that only understands 32-bit
> addresses to exchange traffic with a host that only has a 128-bit address?
With some kind of NAT mechanism, naturally.
Which is not possible with the current IPv6 address format, if you want
som
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 17:54 , Matt Hoppes
> wrote:
>
> I disagree on that. Ipv4 is very human readable. It is numbers.
>
> Ipv6 is not human numbers. It’s hex, which is not how we normally county.
>
> It is all water under the bridge now, but I really feel like ipv6 could have
> been made
Matt Harris wrote:
That is called "provider lock-in", which is the primary reason,
when IPng WG was formed, why automatic renumbering is necessary for
IPv6.
If this is a concern, then get an allocation from your local RIR and
announce it yourself. Then no provider lock-in based on address spa
On 10/4/19 7:45 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:13 AM Masataka Ohta
wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
And even
if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
in place all you have to change is the prefix.
This is the same as saying "If you need to change
On Friday, 4 October, 2019 05:55, "Doug Barton" said:
> ... unless you're large enough to have your own address space. And even
> if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
> in place all you have to change is the prefix.
And if this is hard, we should be beating up h
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:13 AM Masataka Ohta
wrote:
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > And even
> > if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
> > in place all you have to change is the prefix.
>
This is the same as saying "If you need to change providers in IPv4,
once you h
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:42 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
> >> Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
> >> of IPv6 with reasons.
> >>
> >> Lack of it is still a problem.
>
> > Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss ab
Doug Barton wrote:
And even
if you do need to change providers, once you have your addressing plan
in place all you have to change is the prefix.
Your attempt to hype people that renumbering were easy has
zero probability of success here.
Except that it's not failing,
It failed from the b
On 10/3/19 8:41 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
of IPv6 with reasons.
Lack of it is still a problem.
Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss about IPv6 is that except
in edge cases, you never have to renumber. You
I'm going to reply in some detail to your points here because they are
very common arguments that have real answers. Those who have heard all
this before are free to move on. :)
You sound like someone who doesn't have experience with IPv6. I don't
intend any criticism, I'm simply saying that
Doug Barton wrote:
Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
of IPv6 with reasons.
Lack of it is still a problem.
Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss about IPv6 is that except in
edge cases, you never have to renumber. You get a massive address block
that you can
Mark Andrews wrote:
Please explain how
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-update-parent-zones/
would not work.
Update messages are designed to be forwarded and that includes signed
UPDATE messages be they TSIG or SIG(0). Named already forwards UPDATE
messages if your tell it
On 10/3/19 5:35 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static
addresses,which as we've already discussed is not only possible, but
easy.
That's your opinion. But, as Mark Andrews said:
> Actually you can do exactly the same thing for
John Levine wrote:
Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
of IPv6 with reasons.
News flash: nobody used the A6 RRTYPE which was intended to support
IPv6 renumbering. In 2002, RFC 3363 made A6 experimental. In 2012,
RFC 6563 made A6 historic.
These days we all use ,
> On 4 Oct 2019, at 10:35 am, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses,which as
>> we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy.
>
> That's your opinion. But, as Mark Andrews said:
>
> > Actually you c
In article
you write:
>Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses,
>> which as we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy.
Yup.
>Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
>of IPv6 with reasons.
News flash: nobody
On 10/3/19 5:34 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article
you write:
that gets me on to my small annoyance... /64 bit subnet masks for
local networks. really?
Yup.
Making everything is a /64 is the best because means never again having
to waste brain cycles on right-sizing subnets. And the total
Doug Barton wrote:
Not if you configure your services (like DNS) with static addresses,
which as we've already discussed is not only possible, but easy.
That's your opinion. But, as Mark Andrews said:
> Actually you can do exactly the same thing for glue.
I show it not so easy.
> Please sto
In article
you write:
>that gets me on to my small annoyance... /64 bit subnet masks for
>local networks. really?
Yup.
> ALL of that address space and then throw such
>a large range away on subnets commonly populated
>with no more than a couple of hundred clients...maybe a few thousand
>at wors
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 03:20:50PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Can you imagine keeping those v6 addresses in your head the same way?
I don't have to imagine, I do it on a daily basis. Doesn't seem to cause me
any grief.
In my experience, IPv4 addresses which need to be used directly on a regu
--- aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
From: "Aaron Gould"
Thank God for DNS ;)
No, just Paul Mockapetris... :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mockapetris
scott
On 10/3/19 13:13, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 4 Oct 2019, at 4:35 am, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 10/2/19 15:03, Naslund, Steve wrote:
In my experience, the biggest hurdle to installing a pure IPv6 has nothing to
do with network gear or network engineers. That stuff I expect to support v6.
This b
> On 4 Oct 2019, at 4:35 am, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> On 10/2/19 15:03, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> In my experience, the biggest hurdle to installing a pure IPv6 has nothing
>> to do with network gear or network engineers. That stuff I expect to
>> support v6. This biggest hurdle is the dumb
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 20:11:23 +0100, Alan Buxey said:
> trivial-ish (these days) - you have so much choice...and eventually
> decent routers doing SLAAC will finally be able to serve
> other details such as DNS/time/etc via SLAAC - servers? give them
Well... if you want that...
> that gets me on
Recently, someone alleged wrote wrote:
> It is hard to make the case to eliminate v4 in use cases where it is working
> perfectly fine (especially RFC1918 inside an enterprise).
In light of multiple past mergers of existing IPv4 RFC1918 networks resulting
from company acquisitions and mergers,
Thank God for DNS ;)
-aaron
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alan Buxey
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 2:22 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
hi,
> Go ahead and read your v4 address over the ph
hi,
> Go ahead and read your v4 address over the phone and then do the same with
> your v6 address. Which is easier? I do understand all about these addresses
> both being binary underneath ( I've been doing this for over 30 years now).
> However it is much easier to communicate using four d
hi,
the old UK reverse name notation actually comes from some sensible
ideas - firstly from the big-endian processing methods - but also the
most important part of the address
comes first - ideal for global routing decisions early. who cares
about the actual hostname , get to the actual TLD ;-)
a
On 10/2/19 15:03, Naslund, Steve wrote:
In my experience, the biggest hurdle to installing a pure IPv6 has
nothing to do with network gear or network engineers. That stuff I
expect to support v6. This biggest hurdle is the dumb stuff like
machinery interfaces, surveillance devices, the must h
>Another misconception. Humans (by and large) count in decimal, base 10.
>IPv4 is not that. It only LOOKS like that. In fact, the similarity to familiar
>decimal numbers is one of the reasons that people who are new to networking
>stumble early on, find CIDR challenging, etc.
Go ahead and read
On 10/2/19 10:27 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
The tricky part is in converting a domain name of a
primary nameserver to IP addresses, when the IP
addresses of the primary nameserver changes.
If the primary nameserver ask DNS its IP address
to send an update request to itself, it will get
old addre
I don’t think the issue is the readability of the addresses (although hex does
confuse some people), mainly it is the length and ability to deal with any
string of numbers that long for a human, and I do realize that you can do
static addressing in IPv6 (but I sure would not want to since the ma
Denis Fondras wrote:
What? It's a typical configuration with glues.
For example, in my organization, ns1.noc.titech.ac.jp is the
primary for noc.titech.ac.jp and titech.ac.jp.
Sorry, you are right, I probably haven't understood.
A more artificial configuration is
primary1.childzone.par
Denis Fondras wrote:
What if primary.childzone.parentzone.example.com
is the primary for parentzone.example.com,
and childzone.parentzone.example.com?
In that specific case it looks like you are asking for trouble regardless of
address family :)
What? It's a typical configuration with glues
Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually you can do exactly the same thing for glue. KEY records
below bottom of zone cut exactly the same way as you have A and
below bottom of zone cut. The only difference is the zone listed in
the UPDATE message.
The tricky part is in converting a domain name of
Actually you can do exactly the same thing for glue. KEY records below bottom
of zone cut exactly the same way as you have A and below bottom of zone
cut. The only difference is the zone listed in the UPDATE message.
zone example.com {
...
update-policy {
George Michaelson wrote:
Personally, I choose to favour continued deployment of IPv6.
With
I sometimes wish I understood why SRC was the first
element off the wire, and not DST, Since rational
ASIC/FPGA hardware can latch early on the SRC and
begin routing fast
Mark Andrews wrote:
There is also nothing stopping machines updating their addresses in
the DNS dynamically securely.
Except that glue A/ can not be updated so easily
and security configuration is even more painful than
address configuration.
Masatak
A fair comment would be "you massively mis-remember" and in both
JANET-Email and IPv6 terms, I would not disagree. We're talking about
things done, decisions made 35 or more years ago, to 25 years ago and
my brain has had many fine beers since then.
But the intent remains the same: we made choices
George Michaelson wrote:
Could look inside beyond first header state to see DST as payload.
optimisation for ICMP feels like premature optimisation. But, its
semi-rational. Frag which dropped this, was going to make IP difficult
for any real use anyway, not bothered by the corner-case breaks.
Co
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
