<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffcc" text="#000000">
<br>
On 8/30/2011 4:06 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA4451CBBCF41DC9D91AB7D5950B158@mike"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120">
<style></style>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Hi Lee,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Old work and new work on this
issue:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1710.html">http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1710.html</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560">https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">The market, left to its own
devices, has selected NAT as the pseudo-protocol of choice to
facilitate virtually transparent address sharing.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
NAT is not address sharing, it's address hiding and it totally
interferes with hosts that wish to "share" addresses.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA4451CBBCF41DC9D91AB7D5950B158@mike"
type="cite">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I think there is work undone
which would extend NAT to allow customers to have control over
even multi-layer NAT and would define clear paths for
multi-NAT traversal.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I believe the IETF and the
registries have thwarted development in these areas because
they see, correctly, that IPv6 is a superior answer to
problems of address shortage.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
and I agree with them, overlapping addressed hosts trying to
communicate with each other is problematic.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA4451CBBCF41DC9D91AB7D5950B158@mike"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">The problem is that IPv6 has no
customer demand driving transition, and has thus languished. </font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
yes, the problem is that there is no customer visible issue. it's a
technical one.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA4451CBBCF41DC9D91AB7D5950B158@mike"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I am not saying that I have a
replacement successor protocol to deliver to you, but I look
hungrily at the 8 bits of port number space in the header and
wonder whether it is possible to effectively multiply our
current space by 256, which to me would provide ample headroom
and still leave 256 potential ports per address.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
there is no port number in the ipv4 header (or ipv6 for that
matter). The tcp and udp protocols have a 16 bit port in their
headers but that's of no use to ip.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA4451CBBCF41DC9D91AB7D5950B158@mike"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">And this is in answer to the
question posed by Mr. Vixie, which postulated a no-option
endpoint at IPv6.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">If I had a magic wand to wave, I
would wave it and turn the Internet to IPv6 overnight, I
wouldn't wave it to create a half-way protocol extension.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">But we have no magic wands to
wave and exhaustion of the lingua franca staring us in the
face.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Regards,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Mike</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm in this for the long haul. There is no need to invent
short-sighted hacks to the addressing problem, just accept that it's
going to take a lot of work to do the right thing and changeout the
underlying plumbing of ip networks. It's not impossible and we've
done it before, just need to accept that it's the right thing to do
and get on with the job.<br>
<br>
-lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FA4451CBBCF41DC9D91AB7D5950B158@mike"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);
padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 0px; margin-left: 5px;
margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font: 10pt arial;">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font: 10pt arial; background: none repeat scroll 0%
0% rgb(228, 228, 228);"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="Lee@Dilkie.com"
href="mailto:Lee@Dilkie.com">Lee Dilkie</a> </div>
<div style="font: 10pt arial;"><b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="mike@nationwideinc.com"
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">Mike Burns</a> </div>
<div style="font: 10pt arial;"><b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="paul@redbarn.org"
href="mailto:paul@redbarn.org">Paul Vixie</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="arin-ppml@arin.net"
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> </div>
<div style="font: 10pt arial;"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 30,
2011 3:19 PM</div>
<div style="font: 10pt arial;"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml]
An article of interest to the community....</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
On 8/30/2011 12:01 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:8ED2D34B24014C23AA5F029110C39DD3@mike"
type="cite">buy us enough time to come up with some kind of
backward compatible successor protocol to IPv4? </blockquote>
<br>
no such thing exists... you cannot magically increase the size
of addresses and be backwards compatible. Even NAT, which didn't
touch the size of an address, isn't backwards compatible and
broke plenty of protocols.<br>
<br>
You want magic or divine intervention... it doesn't exist. Only
plain old hard work will get us to our mundane goals of moving
to ipv6. There's really nothing to be gained by wishing
otherwise.<br>
<br>
-lee<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>