I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear me right.
And, no, it does not require any changes any in the global routing infrastructure - as implemented now, and most OS kernels (those which aren't broken-as-designed, grin) would do the trick just fine. None of that dual-stack stupidity, and, of course, no chicken-and-egg problem if the servers and gateways can be made to respect really old and well-established standards. DNS and most applications would need some (fairly trivial) updating, though, to work properly with the extended addressing; and sysadmins would need to do tweaks in their configs since some mythology-driven "security" can get in the way. But they don't have to do that en mass and all at once. The most obvious solution to the non-problem of address space shortage is the hardest to notice, ain't it? --vadim P.S. Hfr YFEE gb ebhgr orgjrra cevingr nqqerff fcnprf bire choyvpnyyl ebhgrq fcnpr, Yhxr. Guvax bs cevingr nqqerff ovgf nf n evtug-fvqr rkgrafvba gb gur sbhe-bpgrg choyvp nqqerff. P.P.S. Gb rkgraq shegure, nygreangr gjb qvfgvapg cevingr nqqerff fcnprf, nf znal gvzrf nf lbh pna svg vagb gur urnqre.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
--vadim
P.S. Hfr YFEE gb ebhgr orgjrra cevingr nqqerff fcnprf bire choyvpnyyl ebhgrq fcnpr, Yhxr. Guvax bs cevingr nqqerff ovgf nf n evtug-fvqr rkgrafvba gb gur sbhe-bpgrg choyvp nqqerff.
P.P.S. Gb rkgraq shegure, nygreangr gjb qvfgvapg cevingr nqqerff fcnprf, nf znal gvzrf nf lbh pna svg vagb gur urnqre.
Gbqq Haqrejbbq jbhyq ybir lbhe fbyhgvba! Cebcf!
This has been thought of before, discussed and rejected. In message <1299498200.29652.40.camel@kotti.kotovnik.com>, Vadim Antonov writes :
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear me right.
And, no, it does not require any changes any in the global routing infrastructure - as implemented now, and most OS kernels (those which aren't broken-as-designed, grin) would do the trick just fine. None of that dual-stack stupidity, and, of course, no chicken-and-egg problem if the servers and gateways can be made to respect really old and well-established standards.
DNS and most applications would need some (fairly trivial) updating, though, to work properly with the extended addressing; and sysadmins would need to do tweaks in their configs since some mythology-driven "security" can get in the way. But they don't have to do that en mass and all at once.
The most obvious solution to the non-problem of address space shortage is the hardest to notice, ain't it?
--vadim
P.S. Hfr YFEE gb ebhgr orgjrra cevingr nqqerff fcnprf bire choyvpnyyl ebhgrq fcnpr, Yhxr. Guvax bs cevingr nqqerff ovgf nf n evtug-fvqr rkgrafvba gb gur sbhe-bpgrg choyvp nqqerff.
P.P.S. Gb rkgraq shegure, nygreangr gjb qvfgvapg cevingr nqqerff fcnprf, nf znal gvzrf nf lbh pna svg vagb gur urnqre.
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
There are a number of reasons why you want IP addresses to be globally unique, even if they are not globally routed.
On Mar 7, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
This has been thought of before, discussed and rejected.
But has this: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-terrell-math-quant-ternary-logic-of-binary-sy... ? Please read and explain *exactly* why it doesn't work... W
In message <1299498200.29652.40.camel@kotti.kotovnik.com>, Vadim Antonov writes :
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear me right.
And, no, it does not require any changes any in the global routing infrastructure - as implemented now, and most OS kernels (those which aren't broken-as-designed, grin) would do the trick just fine. None of that dual-stack stupidity, and, of course, no chicken-and-egg problem if the servers and gateways can be made to respect really old and well-established standards.
DNS and most applications would need some (fairly trivial) updating, though, to work properly with the extended addressing; and sysadmins would need to do tweaks in their configs since some mythology-driven "security" can get in the way. But they don't have to do that en mass and all at once.
The most obvious solution to the non-problem of address space shortage is the hardest to notice, ain't it?
--vadim
P.S. Hfr YFEE gb ebhgr orgjrra cevingr nqqerff fcnprf bire choyvpnyyl ebhgrq fcnpr, Yhxr. Guvax bs cevingr nqqerff ovgf nf n evtug-fvqr rkgrafvba gb gur sbhe-bpgrg choyvp nqqerff.
P.P.S. Gb rkgraq shegure, nygreangr gjb qvfgvapg cevingr nqqerff fcnprf, nf znal gvzrf nf lbh pna svg vagb gur urnqre.
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
W PS: :-) <doh! ROT13 fails to be interesting on punctuation.... >
On 3/7/2011 5:43 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear me right.
This seems like either truly bizarre trolling, or the misguided idea of someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made any necessary plans or steps to implement IPv6. To implement this -- which, to begin with, seems like a bad idea to me (and judging by Mr. Andrews' response, others) -- you'd have to overhaul software on many, many computers, routers, and other devices. (Wait, why does this sound familiar?) Of course, the groundwork would need to be laid out and discussed, which will probably cost us a few years...too bad we don't have a plan that could be put into action sooner, or maybe even was already deployed. Anyway, the needless ROT13 text fairly well convinced me that our messages may be traveling over an ethernet bridge. Jima
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:15:20PM -0600, Jima wrote:
On 3/7/2011 5:43 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear me right.
This seems like either truly bizarre trolling, or the misguided idea of someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made any necessary plans or steps to implement IPv6. To implement this -- which, to begin with, seems like a bad idea to me (and judging by Mr. Andrews' response, others) -- you'd have to overhaul software on many, many computers, routers, and other devices. (Wait, why does this sound familiar?) Of course, the groundwork would need to be laid out and discussed, which will probably cost us a few years...too bad we don't have a plan that could be put into action sooner, or maybe even was already deployed.
Anyway, the needless ROT13 text fairly well convinced me that our messages may be traveling over an ethernet bridge.
Jima
well... not that it gained any traction atall, but given the actual size/complexity of the global interconnect mesh, we -could- ease the transition timing by many years with the following administrative change. No tricks, no OS hacks, no changes to software anywhere.. just a bit of renumbering... recipie: the usable IPv4 ranges RFC 1918 Step one: Invert RFC 1918 to define the global Internets interconnection mesh. Step two: make all other usable IPv4 space "private". Serves 2,000,000 million clients w/o changing to a new protocol family. Enjoy! --bill
well... not that it gained any traction atall, but given the actual size/complexity of the global interconnect mesh, we -could- ease the transition timing by many years with the following administrative change. No tricks, no OS hacks, no changes to software anywhere.. just a bit of renumbering...
recipie:
the usable IPv4 ranges RFC 1918
Step one: Invert RFC 1918 to define the global Internets interconnection mesh. Step two: make all other usable IPv4 space "private".
Serves 2,000,000 million clients w/o changing to a new protocol family.
Enjoy!
--bill
And I fully expect that to be done at some point or another. Country takes the entire 32bit address space for itself. You want to serve that country? Fine, apply for an allocation out of their /0 and route to it over v6.
And I fully expect that to be done at some point or another. Country takes the entire 32bit address space for itself. You want to serve that country? Fine, apply for an allocation out of their /0 and route to it over v6.
What happens when countries are formed from secession? Does one half have to renumber? ;)
It would be a lot easier to do it by continent. 3 bits at prepend. We only have 7 of those and Antarctica likely doesn't need several billion addresses anyway. Got some leftover for the United Federation of Planets. :) (or whatever other semi-practical use that may be dreamed up) You could do the same type of thing with E.164 country code ideas, but that may be a bit stranger and drive the need for more RIRs along the way. Scott On 3/8/11 2:18 AM, George Bonser wrote:
well... not that it gained any traction atall, but given the actual size/complexity of the global interconnect mesh, we -could- ease the transition timing by many years with the following administrative change. No tricks, no OS hacks, no changes to software anywhere.. just a bit of renumbering...
recipie:
the usable IPv4 ranges RFC 1918
Step one: Invert RFC 1918 to define the global Internets interconnection mesh. Step two: make all other usable IPv4 space "private".
Serves 2,000,000 million clients w/o changing to a new protocol family.
Enjoy!
--bill And I fully expect that to be done at some point or another. Country takes the entire 32bit address space for itself. You want to serve that country? Fine, apply for an allocation out of their /0 and route to it over v6.
"misguided idea of someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made any necessary plans or steps to implement IPv6" Lack of planning or good business? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12859585 Raymond Macharia On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Jima <nanog@jima.tk> wrote:
On 3/7/2011 5:43 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard RFCs can be easily used to connect pretty much arbitrary number (arbitrary means
2^256) of computers WITHOUT NETWORK ADDRESS TRANSLATION. Yes, you hear
me right.
This seems like either truly bizarre trolling, or the misguided idea of someone who's way too invested in IPv4 and hasn't made any necessary plans or steps to implement IPv6. To implement this -- which, to begin with, seems like a bad idea to me (and judging by Mr. Andrews' response, others) -- you'd have to overhaul software on many, many computers, routers, and other devices. (Wait, why does this sound familiar?) Of course, the groundwork would need to be laid out and discussed, which will probably cost us a few years...too bad we don't have a plan that could be put into action sooner, or maybe even was already deployed.
Anyway, the needless ROT13 text fairly well convinced me that our messages may be traveling over an ethernet bridge.
Jima
"
participants (12)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Christopher Morrow -
George Bonser -
Jima -
Mark Andrews -
Nathan Eisenberg -
Raymond Macharia -
Scott Morris -
Scott W Brim -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Vadim Antonov -
Warren Kumari