[ipv6-wg] unsubscibe jkuijer@dds.nl

Citeren ipv6-wg-request@localhost:

> Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	ipv6-wg@localhost
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ipv6-wg-request@localhost
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ipv6-wg-admin@localhost
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (McTim)
>    2. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Geoff Huston)
>    3. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush)
>    4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:19:49 +0300
> From: McTim dogwallah@localhost
> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= jorgen@localhost
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
>
> hiya,
>
> (removed address-policy-wg from the cc:)
>
> On 11/28/05, J=F8rgen Hovland jorgen@localhost wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: McTim [
	    
	    
]
> > >
> > >#2 sounds like PI to me. What have I missed?
> >
> > Hello McTim,
> > You are correct. That's why I wrote PI in the email:-).
>
> I guess I misread the below wrong then ;-)
>
> J=F8rgen Hovland wrote:
>
> >> -
> >> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.
>
> > It is an attempt to suggest an alternative idea to the PI discussion.
> > Don't get me wrong. I am for PI. This idea is perhaps a bit more
> > hierarchical instead of the standard flat one. Just making sure we have
> > thought of everything before we reach consensus
>
> I am sure thiat consensus will take a very long tiime on this one!  We
> will probably have to talk about grotopological v6 adressing (as they
> are doing on the ARIN ppml) and a host of other issues.   I reckon we
> ought to wait for shim6 to do their work as well.
>
> > because this PI discussion
> > is very important to ipv6.
>
> v. true.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:15:27 +1100
> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland jorgen@localhost,
>    address-policy-wg@localhost, ipv6-wg@localhost
> From: Geoff Huston gih@localhost
> Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
>
> At 03:37 AM 29/11/2005, J=F8rgen Hovland wrote:
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Florian Weimer" fw@localhost
> >Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:00 PM
> >
> >
> >>* Jeroen Massar:
> >>
> >>>>1. Make /32 the only routable entity so we can use perfect match in
> >>>>    the DFZ instead of longest-prefix match.
> >>>
> >>>What about the organizations that have say a /19, want them to inject
> >>>all their more specific /32's?
> >>
> >>You can inject a /19 as 8192 /32s.  Shouldn't make a difference if the
> >>/19 is really used.
> >>
> >>At this stage, it's probably not too wise to embed the /32--/48--/64
> >>in silicon, but vendors will undoubtedly do this if they can save a
> >>few bucks and current policies remain as inflexible as they are.
> >
> >Hi,
> >Perfect match is faster but far from better. What I think perhaps would be=
> =20
> >interesting to see in the future with regards to IPv6 and PI is the=
>  following:
> >
> >1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.
> >2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and take=
> =20
> >their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce it as a=20
> >more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer decides to get=20
> >multiple providers, then the network operator with the /32 could also=20
> >announce a more specific.
> >
> >In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my phone=20
> >number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to do that=20
> >with internet providers?
> >Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat with=20
> >todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be able to=
> =20
> >handle that hence rule #1.
>
>
> Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit=
> =20
> of deployed capability of routing.
>
> Then what?
>
>     Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> From: Randy Bush randy@localhost
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:17 -1000
> To: Salman Asadullah sasad@localhost
> Cc: Roger Jorgensen rogerj@localhost,
>     Oliver Bartels oliver@localhost,
>     "ipv6-wg@localhost" ipv6-wg@localhost,
>     "address-policy-wg@localhost" address-policy-wg@localhost,
>     roger@localhost
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
> > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real
> > issues for a good reason.
>
> i gather that the message that leslie daigle was given at the
> last nanog was not well-transmitted to the ietf.  no big
> surprise.
>
> you may want to look at http://nanog.org/mtg-0510/real/ipv6-bof.ram
>
> randy
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:39 +0100
> From: Andre Oppermann oppermann@localhost
> To: Salman Asadullah sasad@localhost
> CC: Roger Jorgensen rogerj@localhost,
>  	Oliver Bartels oliver@localhost,
>  	"ipv6-wg@localhost" ipv6-wg@localhost,
>  	"address-policy-wg@localhost" address-policy-wg@localhost,
>  	roger@localhost
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
>
> Salman Asadullah wrote:
> >
> > You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
> >
> > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real
> > issues for a good reason.
>
> Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet and to be
> workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there.
> That is every operating system in sufficient existence.  That puts IPv6
> even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade
> and replacement cycles.
>
> Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem.  Renumbering is not
> just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls.
> No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet.
>
> So nice try but no cookie.
>
> --
> Andre
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Salman
> >
> > At 10:55 AM 11/25/2005 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
> > > > and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
> > > > those who requires this functionallity.
> > > >
> > > > Thus they won't use IPv6.
> > > >
> > > > Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
> > > >
> > > > And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
> > > > size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
> > > > providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
> > > >
> > > > A technical playground for technically interested people.
> > >
> > > a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still
> > > thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.
> > >
> > > Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors
> > > to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and
> > > vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was
> > > suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to
> > > understand.
> > >
> > > Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to
> > > give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy
> > > for them to switch providers as they see fit.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, please let me translate:
> > > > "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single
> > > > horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving,
> > > > start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car
> > > > gives us."
> > > >
> > > > Sound like newspeak:
> > > > If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.
> > >
> > > for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real
> > > solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those
> > > possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers
> etc,
> > > then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us
> > > multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create
> > > connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the
> > > session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything
> > > either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it
> > > use the extended header of IPv6.
> > >
> > > That's just ONE of many possible ways...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of
> > > Tromsø as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Roger Jorgensen             |
> > > rogerj@localhost       | - IPv6 is The Key!
> > > http://www.jorgensen.no     | roger@localhost
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> End of ipv6-wg Digest
>