[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at karoshi.com
bmanning at karoshi.com
Tue May 15 21:29:00 CEST 2007
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:47:09PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > > er... perhaps I misread. you stated; "you can stop it from > > being useful PI space, which is all you need to do." > > i understand this as you (party Q) being able to effect any > > communications between myself (party R) and Gert (party S)... > > the single time this is effective is when party Q is in the > > transit path btwn R & S. > > "you" == RIRs/whoever publishing these blocks in a list of prefixes which > should not be seen on the public ipv6 internet, due to community mandate. i have problems w/ the term "public [I,i]nternet" - could you please define it? > - do you want to base your bilateral communications and possibly your > business on an something which is frankly unsupported as designed and > could stop working at any stage if operator Q were to implement > uncontroversial prefix filters? are you suggesting that party Q is the only option for communications btwn parties R & S? > - do you want to go beyond communications between R and S? sure... > Prove the point, Bill. Go ahead and advertise 10/8 and use it in anger on > the public ipv4 internet. When you've got some good figures which > indicate how useful it is, let us know. not a chance. i will note that there are a whole bunch of folks who do use 10.0.0.0/8 "in anger" on the internet - i see many packets w/ this netblock as a source address. > >>The point is, if a block is carved out and marked specifically as being > >>non-routable on the public v6 internet, it will have degraded > >>connectivity to some degree or other. > > > > do i care? > > Given your position on announcing 3ffe::/24 and 3ffe:800::/24 until fairly > recently, evidently not :-) marked by whom? (and wrt 3ffe:: space... folks are still using it and so i still annouce it. it remains useful for them. :) > > does that effect the usefulness of a given prefix > > if some ISP someplace filters out (refuses to listen) to the > > announcements? i posit that: > > a) i have zero influence on your operational behaviour > > when i have zero business relationship w/ you > > b) you have the ability to set whatever policies you like > > for packet acceptance into your network and packet > > egress from your network. > > No argument there. But we're talking about different things. So far, > you're talking about connectivity between exactly two specific parties. > I'm not. so your talking about multicast? last i checked, nearly all traffic was unicast; e.g. end to end, e.g. between exactly two specific parties. > > >>On a related issue, I'd be interested to know what the reachability > >>degradation was like for the last of the 3ffe:: space after 6/6/6? You > >>didn't happen to do any measurements on it? > > > > your general qustion (prefix reachability) is based on (imho again) > > a flawed premise... if i may, could you clarify the two endpoints > > for > > such a reachability study? > > I was thinking more of X = time, Y = % of ipv6 space reachable from > ${3ffe}, where 100% at a particular timepoint would be # of reachable > prefixes from some place known to be relatively well connected (cue flames > for fuzzy specification). Given your reaction to the question, it sounds > like you haven't done looked into this, which is a minor pity. but that is the wrong question. how in the world do you ensure reachability across thousands of ASNs, each of which is willing/able to set their own policies about prefix acceptance? I'm almost persuaded that I don't WANT reachability to all that v6 space... too many places to hid spambots. (and yes, the fuzzy specification is hard to code to... :) > Nick, > bill's friend(tm) thats a new one... :) care to take out a partnership in "Bills Bait & Sushi" ... there are franchise ops available.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]