- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> 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
-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 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
>> ac
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Barry Shein 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 bits. They're
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
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.
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 protoc
In message , 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 should be implemented at the network edge to dro
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Cutler James R
wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
>> wrote:
>> Or did you mean use DNS as it fits in the current system, which
>> doesn't actually satisfy (1) at all since the layer 4 protoc
On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>> In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
>>> will have learned our lesson and done two things:
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R
wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess 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 the Host identification and the Networ
On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Owen DeLong 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
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
(p
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
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM, joel jaeggli 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.
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
> > sam
Owen DeLong 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 implies variable le
--- joe...@bogus.com wrote:
From: joel jaeggli
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.
-
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 frag
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 Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell 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 arpanet, which was ex
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
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 Web-services
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 criter
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 latte
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 toward
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 oth
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 lo
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
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 exerci
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
Tom Taylor
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 'T
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 ftp://chach
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
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 1
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, a
35 matches
Mail list logo
