Alexei,
On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it?
It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
I would contend that is not true. What says that every device inside a company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session initiation is concerned? Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes down substantially. Wouldn't you agree? Trust me, I would like to just see us get it over with as far as IPv6 is concerned, provided we have a working, palatable IPv6 mh solution. But, man, I can't pass the red face test on a lot of these hypothesis.... :( Thanks, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163
Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it?
It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
I would contend that is not true. What says that every device inside a company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session initiation is concerned?
Wasn't that the point of IP-Mobility? Take your one-and-only IP address anywhere you go? -- Andre
Christian, On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it? It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology. Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes down substantially. Wouldn't you agree?
My feeling is that the question isn't how much memory, but rather how much CPU and bandwidth is necessary to deal with routing thrash. Yes, you can aggregate different things to try to reduce the number of entries, but that would seem to go against the general idea Alexei was suggesting. I mean, I'm an entity, and it'd be cool to have my own routed PI address and not have to deal with reconfiguring my network when I took my laptop from work to home... Rgds, -drc
In message <885D3ED1-2EE0-431B-A51A-8935E2A34081@nominum.com>, David Conrad wri tes:
Christian,
On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it? It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology. Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes down substantially. Wouldn't you agree?
My feeling is that the question isn't how much memory, but rather how much CPU and bandwidth is necessary to deal with routing thrash.
That's right. The issues are the complexity of the routing computation and the convergence time/stability of the routing computation as a whole. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
At 1:02 PM -0500 2005-07-07, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
I would contend that is not true. What says that every device inside a company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session initiation is concerned?
The problem is that you don't know, a priori, which devices will or will not need to be fully externally addressable. Even if we talk about just mobile phones, it's easy to imagine billions of devices world-wide that will need connectivity in the near future. Most devices won't need full bidirectional connectivity all the time, no. But it's also easy to imagine circumstances where you decide that you need to change the setting on the VCR or check the stove to see if you forgot and left it turned on. If you can give all the devices in your home full bidirectional connectivity (via a secure method, of course), then a whole lot of options open up that would otherwise not have been possible. -- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
Moreover, if you are not multihomned, you can be aggregated. If you became multihome - yes, you take a slot; how many entities in the world should be multihomed? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com> To: "David Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>; "Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.net> Cc: "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi@niif.hu>; "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@burtongroup.com>; "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:02 AM Subject: RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
Alexei,
On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it?
It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
I would contend that is not true. What says that every device inside a company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session initiation is concerned? Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes down substantially. Wouldn't you agree? Trust me, I would like to just see us get it over with as far as IPv6 is concerned, provided we have a working, palatable IPv6 mh solution. But, man, I can't pass the red face test on a lot of these hypothesis.... :( Thanks, Christian The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163
On the subject of how many entities should be multihomed. Any entitiy whose operations would be significantly impacted by the loss of their connectivity to the global internet. A personal example with names withheld to protect the guilty A distributor who took 85% of their orders over the internet the rest was phone and EDI the telcom coordinator got a 'great deal' on Internet service and LD from an unnamed vendor. Well we cut over our links and within a week our major customers had trouble reaching us due to the SP relying only on the public peering points to exchange traffic with other networks. At that point I set up BGP got an AS and reconnected our new provider and our old provider so that we had service from both SP's A 30 year old company almost went out of business due to being single-homed. Being dependent on a single SP is a "Bad Thing (tm)" At 04:02 AM 7/8/2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Moreover, if you are not multihomned, you can be aggregated. If you became multihome - yes, you take a slot; how many entities in the world should be multihomed?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com> To: "David Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>; "Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.net> Cc: "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi@niif.hu>; "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@burtongroup.com>; "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:02 AM Subject: RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
Alexei,
On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it?
It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
I would contend that is not true. What says that every device inside a company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session initiation is concerned?
Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes down substantially. Wouldn't you agree?
Trust me, I would like to just see us get it over with as far as IPv6 is concerned, provided we have a working, palatable IPv6 mh solution. But, man, I can't pass the red face test on a lot of these hypothesis.... :(
Thanks, Christian
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163
participants (7)
-
Alexei Roudnev -
Andre Oppermann -
Brad Knowles -
David Conrad -
Kuhtz, Christian -
Scott McGrath -
Steven M. Bellovin