On 10/03/2012 09:52 AM, Seth Mos wrote:
Op 3-10-2012 18:33, Kevin Broderick schreef:
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture
hall, Vint Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle
worthy and at the time, and a fond memory
- K
"Pick a number between
at all as long as we all
acknowledge the purpose of the discussion. :-)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 6:25 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Barry Shein
Subject: RE: IPv4 address length technical design
> While this
On 6 Oct 2012, at 02:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Wasn't David Cheriton proposing something like this?
>
> http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/triad/
CCNx basically routes on URLs
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2009/papers/Jacobson.pdf
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
On 7 Oct 2012, at 18:17, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Intentionally crashing the moon into the earth is a new idea. How far
> should we run with it before concluding that it not only isn't a very
> good one, considering it hasn't taught us anything we didn't already
> know?
http://www.xent.com/FoRK
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
> resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
> single default external route.
>
> So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to
- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> Well, George, you can take a new idea and run with it a bit, or just
> resist it right from the start.
>
> We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
>
> So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. Th
>
> Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
> resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
> single default external route.
>
> So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to
> BGP in some sense.
LISP DDT uses a lookup
On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
> resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
> single default external route.
>
> So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar t
Back in the 80s when DNS was a fairly new idea and things like Google
were way in the future I remember suggesting on the TCP-IP list that
people grab a phone number they owned as a domain name and add
first_last as a mailbox so we could leverage the international phone
directory system to find ea
Ok, then let's take a step back, perhaps not permanently, and say DNS
resolution is only really useful for routers with more than just a
single default external route.
So DNS could be reduced to an inter-router only protocol, similar to
BGP in some sense.
I suppose one question is how do we disc
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information,
> no?
It has occurred to me that the name on my shirt's tag contains some
structured information. That doesn't make it particularly well suited
for use as a computer network ro
On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
>
> So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a
> smooth function from hostname->ipaddr->routing.
No.
Not just no, but hell no at the asserted c
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
>
> Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's lose this silly phone number
> portability nonsense and use phone numbers as routes.
>
You do not want to go down the hell hole that is SS7.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
In article <20592.28334.622769.539...@world.std.com> you write:
>It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information,
>no?
Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's lose this silly phone number
portability nonsense and use phone numbers as routes.
I mean, anyone who moves and takes his ce
On Oct 6, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Barry Shein wrote, in part:
>
> We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
>
> So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a
> smooth function from hostname->ipaddr->routing.
I would suggest that this is a bit optimis
length technical design
- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> Don't change anything! That would...change things!
Your man; he is made of straw. :-)
> Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address
> rather than convert it t
Well, George, you can take a new idea and run with it a bit, or just
resist it right from the start.
We can map from host names to ip addresses to routing actions, right?
So clearly they're not unrelated or independent variables. There's a
smooth function from hostname->ipaddr->routing.
Take an
As I said earlier, names' structure does not map to network or physical
location structure.
DNS is who; IP is where. Both are reasonably efficient now as separate
entities. Combining them will wreck one. You're choosing to wreck routing
(where), which to backbone people sounds frankly stark
It's occured to you that FQDNs contain some structured information,
no?
-b
On October 5, 2012 at 21:47 b...@herrin.us (William Herrin) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> > 5. Bits is bits.
> > I don't know how to say that more clearly.
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> Bi
On 10/5/2012 9:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> 5. Bits is bits.
>>
>> I don't know how to say that more clearly.
>>
>> An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation
>> implications (net part, host part.)
>>
>> A host name is a string o
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> 5. Bits is bits.
> I don't know how to say that more clearly.
Hi Barry,
Bits is bits and atoms is atoms so lets swap all the iron for helium
and see how that works out for us.
You can say "bits as bits" as clearly as you like but however you
On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation
implications (net part, host part.)
A host name is a string of bits of varying length. But it's still just
ones and zeros, an in
On Oct 5, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC
> addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been
> tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just
> XNS addresses and maybe this has changed bu
> While this is an interesting thought experiment, what problem are
> you trying to solve with this proposal?
(asked privately but it seems worthwhile answering publicly, bcc'd,
you can id yourself if you like.)
Look, as I said in the original message I was asked to speak to a
group of young "
Well, XNS (Xerox Networking System from PARC) used basically MAC
addresses. Less a demonstration of success than that it has been
tried. But it's where ethernet MAC addresses come from, they're just
XNS addresses and maybe this has changed but Xerox used to manage the
master 802 OUI list and are a
- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> Don't change anything! That would...change things!
Your man; he is made of straw. :-)
> Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address
> rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental
> change. It's m
Don't change anything! That would...change things!
Obviously my idea to use the host name directly as a src/dest address
rather than convert it to an integer is not a small, incremental
change. It's more in the realm of a speculative proposal.
But I'm not sure that arguing that our string of bit
In article
<72a2f9af18ec024c962a748ea6cf75b90ed2b...@w8ussfj204.ams.gblxint.com> you write:
>Wouldn't that implicate the routing system to have, in essence, one routing
>entry for every host on the network?
>
>That would be the moral equivalent to just dropping down to a global ethernet
>fabric
well that would work.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
In Singapore in June 2011 I gave a talk at HackerSpaceSG about just doing awa
anog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:36 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.
> About the only obvious objection, other than vague
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:36 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.
> About the only obvious objection, other than vague handwaves about
> compute efficiency, is it would potentially make packets
- 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
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.
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
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
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 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
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
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:59:20PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> Where's Noel Chiappa when you need him?
>
> > (2) The new protocol will use variable-length address for the Host
> > portion, such as used in the addresses of CLNP,
>
> This also was considered during the IPv6 design
On October 3, 2012 at 17:09 j...@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
>
> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>
Variable.
-b
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>>>
>>
>> In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we
>> will have learned our lesson
On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>>
>
> 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 i
On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>>
>
> 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 ide
On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the
choice of 32
>>> bits for an IPv4 address?
> ...
>> Actually that was preceded by RFC 760, which in turn was a derivative
>> of IEN 123. I believe the answer to the original qu
On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:59 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:49:56 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>> (1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network
>> identification into the same bit field;
>
> Where's Noel Chiappa when you need him?
Saying "I told you so" I suspe
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:49:56 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
> (1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network
> identification into the same bit field; instead every packet gets a
> source network address, destination network address, AND an
> additional tuple of Source host a
On 10/3/12, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>
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 Network
identification into the same bit
On Oct 3, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
>> "Pick a number between this and that." It's the 80's and you can
>> still count the computers in the world. :)
>
> And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits. Go
> fi
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mos [mailto:seth@dds.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:53 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
Op 3-10-2012 18:33, Kevin Broderick schreef:
> I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washi
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- j...@baylink.com wrote:
> From: Jay Ashworth
>
> So the address space for IPv8 will be...
>
> -
>
>
> Jim says:
>
> "IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32)
>
> There is a natural routing hierarchy with
--- j...@baylink.com wrote:
From: Jay Ashworth
So the address space for IPv8 will be...
-
Jim says:
"IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32)
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8
addressing8 regions, 256 distribution centers
in each region and f
- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Crocker"
> My theory is that there is a meta-rule to make new address spaces have
> 4 times as many bits as the previous generation.
>
> We have three data points to establish this for the Internet, and
> that's the minimum needed to run a correlation:
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the
choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
...
Actually that was preceded by RFC 760, which in turn was a derivative
of IEN 123. I believe the answer to the original question is
...
My theory is that there is a meta-rule to make n
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
>> "Pick a number between this and that." It's the 80's and you can
>> still count the computers in the world. :)
>
> And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits. Go
> fi
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:44:16 -0400, "Tony Patti" said:
>
> Perhaps worth noting (for the archives) that a significant part of the early
> ARPAnet was DECsystem-10's with 36-bit words.
And the -10s and -20s were the major reason RFCs refer to octets rather than
bytes,
as they had a rather slippery
rbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:28 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 address length technical design
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
It's worthwhile noting that the state of system (mini and
microcomputer) art at the t
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
>> "Pick a number between this and that." It's the 80's and you can
>> still count the computers in the world. :)
>
> And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits. Go
> f
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>> Sadiq Saif [mailto:sa...@asininetech.com] wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>> >
>> > Chee
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:52:57PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
> "Pick a number between this and that." It's the 80's and you can
> still count the computers in the world. :)
And yet, almost concurrently, IEEE 802 went with forty-eight bits. Go
figure. I'm pretty sure the explanation you're looking f
> Sadiq Saif [mailto:sa...@asininetech.com] wrote:
>
> 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?
> >
> > Cheers.
>
> I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - https://tools.ie
Chris Campbell writes:
> Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
> bits for an IPv4 address?
>
> Cheers.
8 bit host identifiers had proven to be too short... :)
-r
Op 3-10-2012 18:33, Kevin Broderick schreef:
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture hall, Vint
Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle worthy and at the
time, and a fond memory
- K
"Pick a number between this and that." It's the 80's and you
I'll add that in the mid-90's, in a University Of Washington lecture hall, Vint
Cerf expressed some regret over going with 32 bits. Chuckle worthy and at the
time, and a fond memory
- K
Sadiq Saif wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Campbell
>wrote:
>> Is anyone aware of any histo
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?
>
> Cheers.
I believe the relevant RFC is RFC 791 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
--
Sadiq S
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop ht
Is anyone aware of any historical documentation relating to the choice of 32
bits for an IPv4 address?
Cheers.
75 matches
Mail list logo
