[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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu May 17 14:03:11 CEST 2007
[this is getting far too pedantic and way off topic for address-policy-wg] bmanning at karoshi.com wrote: > i have problems w/ the term "public [I,i]nternet" - could you > please define it? In such a way that 1) you'd be happy with the definition and 2) we're stay relaticely on-topic for address-policy-wg at ripe? I doubt it. Your ability to pick nits far exceeds the charter of this mailing list - and, indeed my patience for creating water tight definitions. I'm aware of your position on "which [Ii]nternet are we talking about". >> - 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? no, merely that allowing your money and livelihood to depend on something unsupported (as-designed) is not a wise move, imo. > marked by whom? (and wrt 3ffe:: space... folks are still using it > and so i still annouce it. it remains useful for them. :) Why not - if it makes you happy. Incidentally, would you mind if I also announced 3ffe::/24 to my v6 upstreams? Now that 3ffe space is deprecated (and let's not get into the "by whom" argument here), I'm sure you can't have any objections. I could make 3ffe::/24 useful to my peers too, I'm sure. What do you think? After all, sharing is caring. >> 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. no, i'm talking about unicast between R and [A-P][S-Z]. I.e. generic connectivity on the public ipv6 Internet (note calculated use of undefined term) between relatively arbitrary parties also on the same public Internet. >> 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? No idea. Global dictatorship? But policies can be defined which create a network of networks which generally interoperate and interconnect well, and where if you can't get connectivity from point A to point B, that might be considered enough of a problem for the relevant people to want to fix it. That's enough for me. >> bill's friend(tm) > > thats a new one... :) care to take out a partnership in "Bills Bait & Sushi" ... there are franchise ops available. In a different world, perhaps. It might appeal to me more if I were of the meat-eating inclination. Do you have any other appealing franchise options? Nick, "you know what I mean"
- 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 ]