At 17:44 06.12.99 -0600, Josh Duffek wrote:
>In a perfect world with proper network design I would have to disagree with
>you. I believe that properly subnetted the private address space allocated
>would be enough. Classful routing and VLSM should take care of this
>problem.
>
>But in the real w
auth ecb7adcf subscribe ietf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
% > all those services on one LAN infrastructure, then that LAN
% > MUST BE UP all the time. What is the cost to keep up all
% > the infrastructure pieces 7x24 and never let them go down?
% > Remember, you can't even call the Help Desk if the LAN is
% > down (assuming phone service depends on it
I don't quite agree. The NAT WG list is primarily for achieving the
milestones of the NAT WG. The IETF list is for discussing overall IETF
issues which is what we are (mostly) doing. The discussion which is taking
place among some very well experienced IETF'ers, crosses several working
groups.
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>Having said that, I ask you: What do you foresee as a realistic IPv6
> > >>transition plan? Dual stacks? I don't see it happening, to tell you
> > >>the truth. (Maybe this 6-in-4 stuff will actually help here.)
> >
>
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As more and more people switch to this configuration, they'll start
> > finding themselves talking to more and more things over the net
> > natively, and fewer and fewer through the translator. Suddenly,
> > they'll discover they *do* have globall
Here's a heads up for those of you who have to deal with reconciling or
vouchering your credit card statements. The charges that Nortel put
through from the IETF 46, for the Dinner and the Lan Cards, were
evidently put through using Canadian $ amounts. The credit card
companies then converted to y
> the idea is that IPv6 site renumbering will be so much easier than for
> IPv4 that renumbering will be *less* painful than NATting.
this needs to be reconciled with the *much* more conservative statements on
v6 renumber-ability coming from respected v6 folk such as deering et alia.
randy
Actually not. The NAT WG is trying to write down information to make the use
of NAT as relatively painless as is possible. I think *this* is exactly the right
topic for the main IETF list - what we are talking about is the survival of
the Internet. Maybe we should ban all other topics for a while.
> I'm not sure we're there yet in the support technology for renumbering.
> We have good ideas but we haven't pushed them totally out the door yet.
> However, we do have good ideas.
[ flame, not directed at you personally but at this thread ]
this is not the internet marketing task force.
get r
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> get real. a LOT of folk have deployed nat, hundreds every day. it's easy.
> it solves the customer's perception of their problem. it's not expensive.
It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
maintain it. And yes, I'm going
> what we are talking about is the survival of the Internet.
you forgot the news at 11 part
randy
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > get real. a LOT of folk have deployed nat, hundreds every day. it's easy.
> > it solves the customer's perception of their problem. it's not expensive.
>
> It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you h
> > the idea is that IPv6 site renumbering will be so much easier than for
> > IPv4 that renumbering will be *less* painful than NATting.
>
> this needs to be reconciled with the *much* more conservative statements on
> v6 renumber-ability coming from respected v6 folk such as deering et alia.
W
> It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
> maintain it. And yes, I'm going by Actual Live Customer Experience In
> Actual Live Large Companies.
if it were easy to show this we would not be discussing the topic
I don't know many companies who decide to do "*astonish
Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is *astonishingly* expensive. It only seems cheap until you have to
> > maintain it. And yes, I'm going by Actual Live Customer Experience In
> > Actual Live Large Companies.
>
> The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
> I've generally been of the opinion that NAT is a very workable solution
> for the small office and home network, and questionable for larger
> networks. Sounds like you're saying the same.
The New York City Board of Education is using NATs as a security
measure to keep their 1000+ schools off o
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > what we are talking about is the survival of the Internet.
>
> you forgot the news at 11 part
Actually, to a large extent, the "internet" as "transparent end to end
catanet" *is* dead. It has been dead ever since the average company
was forced to use
> From: Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
> HUGE market, it is indeed cheap and easy to use. ... NAT can be used
> for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's a good hammer
> when the nail is a
> if it were easy to show this we would not be discussing the topic
> I don't know many companies who decide to do "*astonishingly*
> expensive" things if there are cheaper options
But they often do things that look cheap in the short run and then
discover the full cost later.
At 04:22 PM 12/7/99 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> The counter argument is that for the Home Networking case, which is a
>> HUGE market, it is indeed cheap and easy to use. ... NAT can be used
>> for a variety of things. Perhaps we can
Perry Metzger announced:
| Actually, to a large extent, the "internet" as "transparent end to end
| catanet" *is* dead
^^^
What's a "transparent end to end catanet"?
Does that have anything to do with the networks with "hidden"
infrastructure in the discussion on translating internet [si
unsuscribe
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Kim,
what is the impact of allocations -vs- routing table space. a public
access route server reports the following:
64152 network entries and 253321 paths using 13815800 bytes of memory
another sez
69584 network entries and 704080 paths using 32026944 bytes of memory
while my numbers above ma
unsuscribe
unsuscribe
> memory is cheap now, so lets loosen those thumb screws ;-)
i think we need an automaton to post a few things every few hours to this
and the nanog list.
it's not the memory. it's the processing power required which is quite
non-linear.
it's not the memory for the /24s in old b space, it's th
> NAT can be used for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's
> a good hammer when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what
> to do about the large corporation issue.
NAT is a good hammer for a home network if and only if the only
purpose of a home network is to allow mult
randy,
just because routers meltdown from leaks and mis-configurations is not a
reasonable justification for ARIN's tight policies on IPv4 allocations,
which kim stated earlier was to keep space aggrigated for router memory
requirements, adding speed and processing power to that definition still
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > NAT can be used for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's
> > a good hammer when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what
> > to do about the large corporation issue.
>
> NAT is a good hammer for a home network if and only if the only
> purpose o
> Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > > NAT can be used for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's
> > > a good hammer when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what
> > > to do about the large corporation issue.
> >
> > NAT is a good hammer for a home network if and only if the on
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Keith Moore wrote:
> OTOH, if you combine NAT with 6to4 for home networks, the
> picture starts to look a bit better. Think of 6to4 as the
> generic ALG that rids you of the need to have separate ALGs
> for most of the applications that NAT happens to break.
Mine is not a s
Tripp Lilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mine is not a stand in favor of NATs, let me get that out first :-)
> However, the arguments against NATs in the home all center around
> end-to-end connectivity to various devices in the home (light bulbs,
> toasters, VCRs, thermostats, etc).
>
> Is th
On 7 Dec 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Tripp Lilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Is this really the "right" model for that sort of interaction?
>
> Yes. I don't want to invent fifteen thousand different protocols to
> handle things. IP already does what I need most of the time.
Perhap
> Is this really the "right" model for that sort of interaction? Personally,
> my home network (in which every light bulb *will* be on the 'net within
> the year) is not something I want end-to-end connectivity to.
why not?
seems like if you want your light bulbs to be independently addressable
> I think it makes sense to consider a boundary (firewall+ALG) that defines
> a "trusted zone" within the house, establishes ACLs for a given
> "connection", be it a tunnel or otherwise, defined by an authentication
> event, and mediates the activity over that connection as long as it's
> active.
At 10:05 PM 12/7/99 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Tripp Lilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think NATs are architecturally "correct", but I think they're
> > teaching us an important lesson about the (initially valid) assumptions
> > about end to end connectivity. Even after we era
At 09:41 PM 12/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg06036.html
[...]
>what we are talking about is the survival of the Internet
[...]
Death of the net predicted. Mpegs at 11.
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http:
> Anythink mankind can lock, mankind can unlock. You will never get
> rid of firewalls. At least not in our lifetimes.
actually, I'm recently forming a radical opinion that firewalls
need to be first-class components of the internet architecture.
only: (a) they should be thought of as "access co
| 1. if IPv6 allocation policies aren't a fair amount more liberal
|than IPv4 ones in how much address space is doled out, they're
|broken. there's still a need to aggregate addresses for routing
|purposes, but there's no need to be stingy about doling them out.
We are agreed that t
% need to be able to attach (perhaps multiple) credentials to packets,
% that stay with those packets end-to-end rather than having to do
% tunneling. those credentials (sadly) may need to be based on both
% user identity and current network location. it should follow that
% (c) IP addresses h
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Keith Moore wrote:
> actually, I'm recently forming a radical opinion that firewalls
> need to be first-class components of the internet architecture.
I don't think that's radical, but some people think I'm radical, so it
might not matter :-)
> as authentication for service
% So, how many /20s are there in IPv6?
%
% Sean.
The same as IPv4. Oh, you mean the number of prefixs that
carry the same number of end-node addresses as an IPv4 /20?
That would equate to the number of /116's in IPv6 parlance.
--bill
44 matches
Mail list logo
