William Allen Simpson wrote:
6) The Paul Francis (the originator of NAT) Polymorphic Internet Protocol
(PIP) had some overlapping features, so we also asked them to merge
with us (July 1993). More complexity in the protocol header chaining.
With the merger, Paul Francis was saying
George Michaelson wrote:
Thats partly why I
find a huge personal disconnect with "failure" -It hasn't failed the
way DECnet failed. Far from it.
Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage
visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative
ef
b...@theworld.com wrote:
We know we need to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles but electric cars,
at least at this point, leave quite a bit to be desired like battery
technology (materials needed, disposal, cost, electricity generation,
etc.)
Suppose syngas becomes economical.
Who said we hav
On March 22, 2022 at 11:53 jmai...@jmaimon.com (Joe Maimon) wrote:
> 25 years to not achieve global domination opens the door to become
> obsoleted before it does. Pretty sure that would be more bad than good.
Not uncommon, but the problem is: Obsoleted by what exactly?
We're kind of in a si
I would normally not contribute to this, but I think having been a
passive participant of the IPng mail lists through the 80s-90s I like
the quality of reflecting "did we get what we wanted". I'm not writing
here as an RIR employee (which I am) but as somebody who was along for
the ride. We didn't
On 3/22/22 4:58 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My
experience
with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't g
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:36 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> right would have had any better chance of being adopted? My experience
> with Cisco product managers at the time is that they couldn't give a
> shit about the technical aspects of an ipng. If the
On 3/22/22 5:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
john,
fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance
That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but
rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make
a decision”
my take was that cidr had done a lo
Thanks for all who've responded. I was able to reach a very helpful engineer @
HE.
Shawn
-Original Message-
From: "Owen DeLong"
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 2:15pm
To: "Shawn L"
Subject: Re: Any engineers from HE on the list?
FWIW, [ supp...@he.net ]( mailto:supp...@he.net ) is
> On Mar 21, 2022, at 12:21, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG writes:
>
>> Virtually every useful flow of packets in one direction requires a
>> relatively symmetrical flow of packets in the other direction.
>
> Packet captures are useful without anything being returned. It's not
Admitting to not having read every message in these threads,
but would like to highlight a bit of the history.
IMnsHO, the otherwise useful history is missing a few steps.
1) The IAB selected ISO CLNP as the next version of IP.
2) The IETF got angry, disbanded, replaced, and renamed IAB.
3)
> But I was unclear, not asking about v4 vs. v6, but about caring for /
> contributing to evolution of network protocols, or not.
>
> Some evolution has happened in the IPv6 world, more could happen, so
> it gets better. Or throw the baby?
maybe you're talking to the wrong guy. i gave a lot of b
Complaining is fun and healthy.
But I was unclear, not asking about v4 vs. v6, but about caring for /
contributing to evolution of network protocols, or not.
Some evolution has happened in the IPv6 world, more could happen, so it gets
better. Or throw the baby?
Keep safe;
Pascal
> -Origi
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG wrote:
Hi:
IPv4 is 40 years old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old
timers.
25 years to not achieve global domination opens the door to become
obsoleted before it does. Pretty sure that would be more bad than good.
The rest of the
> Which side are you on?
hint: this is an operators' list. we are forced to be on all 'sides'.
this pain gives us the privilege of whining a lot.
randy
Hi:
IPv4 is 40 years old. IPv6 is 25 years old. In Internet time, both are old
timers.
Since then, networks have evolved dramatically, with new physical media like
wireless that hates broadcasts, and new logical constructs like overlays in
cloud and SD WAN which require new IP abstractions a
Full match with my recollection about the cause for this sub optimal outcome.
Happens to the best of us.
One has to remember that at the time we did not consider it a forgone
conclusion that the products of the IETF woukd be the foundation of the Net.
Daniel (age 63, memory not totally unreli
Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6 optional header chain, even after it was widely recognized
that IPv4 options are useless/harmful and were deprecated is an
example of IPv6 bloat.
Extensive use of link multicast for nothing is another example of
IPv6 bloat. Note that IPv4 works without any multicast.
John Curran wrote:
The characterization that the IAB somehow struck back with the IPng
decision implies a level of direction over the decision which simply
did not exist.
I understand that that is your theory.
That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics"
involved, but rather that such
Wondering if there are any engineers from HE (Hurricane Electric) on the list
that could help with a strange traffic issue through your network
If so, please contact me off-list
Thanks
Shawn
john,
fwiw your story matches what is left of my memory. one nuance
> That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics” involved, but
> rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to “make
> a decision”
my take was that cidr had done a lot to relieve the immediate technical
Hi folks,
Could someone from Telus (852) reach out, please? We're seeing a chunk of
users on Telus home connections around the Vancouver, BC, area (Lower
Mainland) struggling with RTT and some chunks of loss on VPN connections
endpoints through gateways in Las Vegas as of ~2022-03-17.
Outer path
> On 22 Mar 2022, at 4:08 AM, Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
>> - There was an open call for proposals.
>> - We had many submissions: Nimrod, PIP, SIP, TUBA, IPAE, CATNIP (TP/IX), ...
>> - SIP absorbed IPAE, and then PIP merged with SIP to form SIPP
>> - Three final proposals CATNIP, TUBA, SIPP
>
John Curran wrote:
IAB hideously striked back to make IPv6 something a lot worse than
CLNP and XNS.
Alas, the above characterization doesn't even come close to the actual
history of IPng –
That's too recent. First, as I wrote:
: TUBA is TCP/UDP over CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) d
24 matches
Mail list logo
