From ram-bounces@iab.org Wed Jan 02 11:13:55 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6E0-0006tU-8h; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:13:48 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Dz-0006tO-3s for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:13:47 -0500 Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.240.7]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Dw-0004p7-U5 for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:13:47 -0500 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080102161344.VGN129.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:13:44 -0500 Received: from [10.30.20.71] ([68.10.115.26]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id YG1w1Y00J0aEP1Q0000000; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:01:57 -0500 Message-Id: From: RJ Atkinson To: ram@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:13:43 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 Subject: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org (NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and any followup discussion that might occur.) I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to its customers. By default there are no global-scope IP addresses -- and none are available as an option at any price to residential broadband subscribers to this particular service. Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home gateway at each customer site. This gateway is managed exclusively by the network operator. The only customer option (at time of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not. This gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24) IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer. This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house. Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside this CPE box. The net result is that this particular operator isn't really providing a "dialtone IP" service. Instead, it is more nearly a "only web and email access" service. For example, there are widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does not work with this service. There are also complaints online about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem to be blocked. The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS, IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box. Of course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise. It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination home gateway is addressed. One could imagine the CPE box being inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24 with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway between the local region of this service and the public again. I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a global-scope IP address. NOTE WELL: The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability. This is simply how they chose to define their service offering. They market it as "High-speed Internet". They believe that customers actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service rather than a "dial-tone IP" service. TWO QUICK OBSERVATIONS: If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept this, then there are at least two implications to consider: 1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as some think. 2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS. Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not, would likely not be usable by these end users. I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected. I am sure that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own. Ran rja@extremenetworks.com _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Wed Jan 02 11:18:42 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ij-0003yw-EG; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:41 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ih-0003xI-J7 for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:39 -0500 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ig-0004tW-VS for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:39 -0500 Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m02GIWxn012016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m02GIWcv029244; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:18:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m02GIRXP029092; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:18:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:30 -0800 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: RE: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:29 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDD48@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering thread-index: AchNWn7LOnnKGN54QTu/N+2SWPk/ewAAH+KQ References: From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "RJ Atkinson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2008 16:18:30.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CD171B0:01C84D5B] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30 Cc: X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org Sounds like a use-case for Teredo [RFC4380]? Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:14 AM > To: ram@iab.org > Subject: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering >=20 >=20 > (NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does > relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list > seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and > any followup discussion that might occur.) >=20 > I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator > in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to > its customers. By default there are no global-scope IP addresses > -- and none are available as an option at any price to residential > broadband subscribers to this particular service. >=20 > Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home > gateway at each customer site. This gateway is managed exclusively > by the network operator. The only customer option (at time > of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not. This > gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the > customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and > uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24) > IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer. > This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside > of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house. > Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside > this CPE box. >=20 > The net result is that this particular operator isn't really > providing a "dialtone IP" service. Instead, it is more nearly > a "only web and email access" service. For example, there are > widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does > not work with this service. There are also complaints online > about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem > to be blocked. The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS, > IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box. Of > course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer > POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise. >=20 > It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination > home gateway is addressed. One could imagine the CPE box being > inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24 > with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway > between the local region of this service and the public again. > I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by > IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a > global-scope IP address. >=20 >=20 > NOTE WELL: > The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability. This > is simply how they chose to define their service offering. They > market it as "High-speed Internet". They believe that customers > actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service > rather than a "dial-tone IP" service. >=20 >=20 > TWO QUICK OBSERVATIONS: > If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept > this, then there are at least two implications to consider: > 1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as=20 > some think. > 2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS. > Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not, > would likely not be usable by these end users. >=20 >=20 > I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected. I am sure > that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Ran > rja@extremenetworks.com >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > RAM mailing list > RAM@iab.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram >=20 _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Wed Jan 02 20:39:27 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAF3K-0008IT-1K; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:39:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAF3I-0008IO-2D for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:39:20 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAF3F-0006Zs-MS for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:39:20 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2) with ESMTP id m031dCss028296; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:39:12 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m031dB0i028295; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:39:11 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:39:11 -0800 From: David Meyer To: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Message-ID: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7 X-philosophy: "Electric light still struck like arrows // Fired but for the ones // Condemned to drift or else be kept from drifting" -- Bob Dylan, "Chimes of Freedom" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86 Cc: ram@iab.org X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1322785100==" Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org --===============1322785100== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:13:43AM -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > (NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does > relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list > seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and > any followup discussion that might occur.) > > I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator > in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to > its customers. By default there are no global-scope IP addresses > -- and none are available as an option at any price to residential > broadband subscribers to this particular service. > > Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home > gateway at each customer site. This gateway is managed exclusively > by the network operator. The only customer option (at time > of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not. This > gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the > customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and > uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24) > IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer. > This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside > of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house. > Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside > this CPE box. > > The net result is that this particular operator isn't really > providing a "dialtone IP" service. Instead, it is more nearly > a "only web and email access" service. For example, there are > widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does > not work with this service. There are also complaints online > about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem > to be blocked. The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS, > IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box. Of > course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer > POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise. > > It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination > home gateway is addressed. One could imagine the CPE box being > inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24 > with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway > between the local region of this service and the public again. > I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by > IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a > global-scope IP address. > > > NOTE WELL: > The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability. This > is simply how they chose to define their service offering. They > market it as "High-speed Internet". They believe that customers > actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service > rather than a "dial-tone IP" service. > > > TWO QUICK OBSERVATIONS: > If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept > this, then there are at least two implications to consider: > 1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as some think. > 2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS. > Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not, > would likely not be usable by these end users. > > Ran, > I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected. I am sure > that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own. Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this outcome for years. Dave --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHfDy/ORgD1qCZ2KcRAiXyAJ9AW5wKkS538Xu9kWcsrAvJt97IYACeMj2R Y5P/ix7uBKcGHR3+xkQYn/I= =LW3w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU-- --===============1322785100== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram --===============1322785100==-- From ram-bounces@iab.org Wed Jan 02 20:57:09 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAFKV-0003q9-SJ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:57:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAFKU-0003q3-7U for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:57:06 -0500 Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAFKT-0006nP-GM for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:57:06 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,237,1196620200"; d="scan'208";a="94615325" Received: from hkg-dkim-2.cisco.com ([10.75.231.163]) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2008 20:24:40 +0530 Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com (hkg-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.123.94]) by hkg-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m031uvcV016485 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:56:57 +0800 Received: from [10.128.66.28] (hkidc-vpn-client-234-58.cisco.com [10.75.234.58]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m031udGR000700 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 01:56:57 GMT Message-Id: <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> From: Roland Dobbins To: ram@iab.org In-Reply-To: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:56:39 +0800 References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=779; t=1199325417; x=1200189417; c=relaxed/simple; s=hkgdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdobbins@cisco.com; z=From:=20Roland=20Dobbins=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20A=20curious=20Internet=20servic e=20offering |Sender:=20; bh=QVabGUlcNU+u82cd4n/QV1J+Le0PCu61CmSHl5bpzU0=; b=Ju59zqLMyu0ocQb4wrJGsFL6r/yGFgVwU61yTUoOBGJYZy8D+PXj/mTd4c WDj0GmGoFh8Zs07DxFiZ6jagR/QqyTxGOb1iQm01zo5VRc2DaNeLjXUl0x0C v01Lp4oXClBCuXsYNpqat+SgPrDFBn8BnAEH1UWUuhVDBKFDK2yUk=; Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-2; header.From=rdobbins@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:39 AM, David Meyer wrote: > Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this > outcome for years. Yes, and it's almost assuredly going to become more common, irrespective of addressing systems, routing systems, etc. Many enterprises already do this to a large degree, they seem to find it an attractive model. Which means that most everything ends up transported via or tunneled over TCP/80 and/or TCP/443, obfuscated and/or encrypted, with more and more interactive applications using COMET-type technologies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // 408.527.6376 voice Culture eats strategy for breakfast. -- Ford Motor Company _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Wed Jan 02 21:13:23 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAFaC-0001oU-KZ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:13:20 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAFaA-0001oM-LR for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:13:18 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAFaA-0006xh-91 for ram@iab.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:13:18 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so4719409rvb.50 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:13:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VlNmfJUALoXf1CSG07JUJBsTdyjmqsoSOVFvAmbo+dQ=; b=VZWBmbwGGn8B3d11xb52vY4Sy9/eOyex3I7kbu4GfoirgVgr9fBQvusaRcUSaLXohC8YdY+qlqISAfj3pxqI4tPzlvq9GXLGyH13l1MMK3g/DV6F8ASP3WIfVwxXCJSyF7gma+gQgF6gwOz7GMJ8wswdcHKAViqJ/OLSyPmbmi4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Mb7vjD6Q+p5YV4B48QTZhXu1NvzQq1W4YF+dY/OdTDncGLvbTYU9F1lZ6vWmNnNACHx2hwciRbGLzuQhetNxD+Pmm7KVybscvx4LDEUtfxDvSuY+mStuxyMhV9X/r4z6C4htb6tRqWHdQgakNMOWgACYXGtPrp0RLMj9toIS9rc= Received: by 10.141.33.21 with SMTP id l21mr7789884rvj.140.1199326397045; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [203.109.224.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k41sm1436994rvb.24.2008.01.02.18.13.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:13:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <477C44B4.5030405@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:13:08 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland Dobbins Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: ram@iab.org X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org On 2008-01-03 14:56, Roland Dobbins wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:39 AM, David Meyer wrote: > >> Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this >> outcome for years. > > Yes, and it's almost assuredly going to become more common, irrespective > of addressing systems, routing systems, etc. Many enterprises already > do this to a large degree, they seem to find it an attractive model. > > Which means that most everything ends up transported via or tunneled > over TCP/80 and/or TCP/443, obfuscated and/or encrypted, with more and > more interactive applications using COMET-type technologies. This whole horror story points to what should be the *real* political issue, rather than the so-called "net neutrality" nonsense. IMHO more use should be made of the terminology in RFC 4084 secttion 2. In fact getting such terminology into consumer protection regulations would be entirely appropriate. But that is way outside the IETF's scope. Brian _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Thu Jan 03 05:39:53 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANUK-0001gg-NE; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:39:48 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANUI-0001gW-JY for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:39:46 -0500 Received: from sequoia.muada.com ([83.149.65.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANUE-00052Y-U7 for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:39:46 -0500 Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m03Ac9gZ010784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:38:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com) Message-Id: <293E8C87-F174-433B-B948-9B8918471457@muada.com> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <477C44B4.5030405@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:38:13 +0100 References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> <477C44B4.5030405@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sequoia.muada.com X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: ram@iab.org X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org On 3 jan 2008, at 3:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this >>> outcome for years. >> Which means that most everything ends up transported via or >> tunneled over TCP/80 and/or TCP/443 Does it? Do we really want to cripple our protocols just because a few ignorant service providers feel like filtering in a certain way? (Note though that inferior protocol selection already happens to some degree: RTSP isn't doing so well these days, more and more stuff is streamed over HTTP because RTSP is firewall and NAT unfriendly.) > This whole horror story points to what should be the *real* political > issue, rather than the so-called "net neutrality" nonsense. > IMHO more use should be made of the terminology in RFC 4084 secttion > 2. > In fact getting such terminology into consumer protection regulations > would be entirely appropriate. But that is way outside the IETF's > scope. What I'm afraid of is that we may end up in a situation where this is good enough for 95% of all people and in a market place with 1 - 3 players, nobody cares about that other 5%. On the other hand, if that anonymous service provider has competition, I'm sure they're going to notice that those attract people who like to actually _use_ their broadband by running peer-to-peer applications. For just port 80, you don't need 20 Mbps. And ISPs make a lot of extra money upselling to higher speeds, which don't cost them much extra but do make them a good bit of extra money (with the exception of those few 24/7 downloaders). _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Thu Jan 03 05:47:50 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANc5-0004vO-Ne; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:47:49 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANc4-0004v0-Md for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:47:48 -0500 Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANc4-0005Gd-51 for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:47:48 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,239,1196620200"; d="scan'208";a="94676987" Received: from hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com ([10.75.231.161]) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2008 05:15:32 +0530 Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com (hkg-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.123.94]) by hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m03Aljws022776 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:47:45 +0800 Received: from [10.128.66.28] (hkidc-vpn-client-234-58.cisco.com [10.75.234.58]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m03AliGR012113 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:47:45 GMT Message-Id: From: Roland Dobbins To: ram@iab.org In-Reply-To: <293E8C87-F174-433B-B948-9B8918471457@muada.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:47:44 +0800 References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> <477C44B4.5030405@gmail.com> <293E8C87-F174-433B-B948-9B8918471457@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1109; t=1199357265; x=1200221265; c=relaxed/simple; s=hkgdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdobbins@cisco.com; z=From:=20Roland=20Dobbins=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20A=20curious=20Internet=20servic e=20offering |Sender:=20; bh=tCAl0PJKppQU2qa2+imPC18CVvxx58YdH4uDsJxwqN8=; b=Ln/8w5xZ03zIFFYJsG9ffRV+3rcvBfa9cFGZ5wWjHGV7/FB4iArMJ941mB 2s/vhO36ogXpbIhDLdizeKmoIew4uRINtMqNDW7420+F3QKrOPugci7Clhr6 EnQ622M89y2S61bLhKypx+c2hurBdGacOC2wOanY6azQYMYLb/vMk=; Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-1; header.From=rdobbins@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:38 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Does it? Do we really want to cripple our protocols just because a > few ignorant service providers feel like filtering in a certain way? No, but that seems to be the trend, for a number of reasons. > (Note though that inferior protocol selection already happens to > some degree: RTSP isn't doing so well these days, more and more > stuff is streamed over HTTP because RTSP is firewall and NAT > unfriendly.) As I mentioned before, this kind of thing is very common in enterprise networks, and is actually viewed as highly desirable by many in that space, as well as by those interested in establishing walled gardens in other arenas for various reasons (IMS, etc.). While this is a timely issue, and one it's obvious many of us feel strongly about, it's probably way off-topic for RAM, however. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // 408.527.6376 voice Culture eats strategy for breakfast. -- Ford Motor Company _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Thu Jan 03 15:15:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAWT2-00053N-Lw; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:15:04 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAWT0-00053G-Qw for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:15:02 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAWSy-0007Oa-94 for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:15:02 -0500 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m03KEREk028628; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:14:44 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:14:38 +0200 Received: from esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.177]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:14:37 +0200 Received: from mgw-int02.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.97]) by esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:14:37 +0200 Received: from [172.19.74.170] (dadhcp-172019074170.americas.nokia.com [172.19.74.170]) by mgw-int02.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id m03KEYHO020189; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 22:14:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> <477C44B4.5030405@gmail.com> <293E8C87-F174-433B-B948-9B8918471457@muada.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bob Hinden Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:14:53 -0800 To: Roland Dobbins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2008 20:14:37.0978 (UTC) FILETIME=[43F32FA0:01C84E45] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: ram@iab.org X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bob.hinden@nokia.com List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org Roland, > As I mentioned before, this kind of thing is very common in > enterprise networks, and is actually viewed as highly desirable by > many in that space, as well as by those interested in establishing > walled gardens in other arenas for various reasons (IMS, etc.). In my experience enterprise networks may provide a similar service for many of their employees, they also use IP for lots of other things like ranging from VPNs, to business to business services, to external facing web services. I don't think many enterprises would find a private address only IP service adequate. Bob _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Thu Jan 03 16:10:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXK9-0006QG-HN; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:09:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXK8-0006Q9-Io for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:09:56 -0500 Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXK7-0008Pn-2h for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:09:56 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,240,1196620200"; d="scan'208";a="94696647" Received: from hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com ([10.75.231.161]) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2008 15:36:25 +0530 Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com (hkg-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.123.94]) by hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m03L9qQr031290 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:09:52 +0800 Received: from [10.128.66.28] (hkidc-vpn-client-234-58.cisco.com [10.75.234.58]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m03L9mGR012797 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:09:51 GMT Message-Id: <1165E6E1-8DC4-48CC-B449-5E0A498335E7@cisco.com> From: Roland Dobbins To: ram@iab.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:09:48 +0800 References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> <331961AF-DF32-41D0-B182-B2982D2D48AC@cisco.com> <477C44B4.5030405@gmail.com> <293E8C87-F174-433B-B948-9B8918471457@muada.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=581; t=1199394592; x=1200258592; c=relaxed/simple; s=hkgdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdobbins@cisco.com; z=From:=20Roland=20Dobbins=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20A=20curious=20Internet=20servic e=20offering |Sender:=20; bh=S6AiGYWeBRjQdluhpxcT8Wcl0KLYp05nMN6DryoIn0I=; b=LlA4lry22cq2F1BMopKRRsQ4+OEk7tvEs4VDrrDYKpeE2TlKfLC/9RWZt0 ko6TCgM+jtGhYT1bxtjzRHf46QGoHmtGf9FWFbxrL+O4kmyZNPrMsDAYIOJW 0N7LIdDWPlL5ZHso4Tk70IBwO1C3R5ncHQCrRgN/+GjjUL16j3/Jk=; Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-1; header.From=rdobbins@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org On Jan 4, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > I don't think many enterprises would find a private address only IP > service adequate. I was referring to the restrictions on protocols/ports for client-type hosts, not private vs. globally-routable IP addresses (though many enterprises use NAT for some or all their interactive client-type hosts). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // 408.527.6376 voice Culture eats strategy for breakfast. -- Ford Motor Company _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Thu Jan 03 16:23:42 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXXM-0004rc-LE; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:23:36 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXXL-0004rX-ES for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:23:35 -0500 Received: from kiwi.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.19]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXXK-0000Cj-UK for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:23:35 -0500 Received: from [131.179.33.196] (Cs-33-196.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.33.196]) by kiwi.cs.ucla.edu (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/UCLACS-6.0) with ESMTP id m03LNY6O003051 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:23:34 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <79BF11B9-B79A-4705-906F-70B55AA46214@cs.ucla.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Lixia Zhang Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:23:33 -0800 To: ram@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:39 PM, David Meyer wrote: > ..... >> I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected. I am sure >> that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own. > > Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this > outcome for years. > > Dave I also recall seeing a presentation by Geoff Huston on the same prediction at least couple years back. On Jan 3, 2008, at 2:47 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: > While this is a timely issue, and one it's obvious many of us feel > strongly about, it's probably way off-topic for RAM, however. I'd agree with Roland here. Lixia _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram From ram-bounces@iab.org Thu Jan 03 18:56:55 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAZvZ-0006Ia-IT; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:56:45 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAZvY-0006AB-DW for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:56:44 -0500 Received: from mint.apnic.net ([202.12.29.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAZvW-0002ja-NC for ram@iab.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:56:44 -0500 Received: from [203.10.60.22] (dhcp22.potaroo.net [203.10.60.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mint.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5A1D5F31; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:56:40 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <477D76B6.1040707@apnic.net> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:58:46 +1100 From: Geoff Huston User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lixia Zhang Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering References: <20080103013911.GA28255@1-4-5.net> <79BF11B9-B79A-4705-906F-70B55AA46214@cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <79BF11B9-B79A-4705-906F-70B55AA46214@cs.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: ram@iab.org X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org Lixia Zhang wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:39 PM, David Meyer wrote: >> ..... >>> I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected. I am sure >>> that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own. >> >> Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this >> outcome for years. >> >> Dave > > I also recall seeing a presentation by Geoff Huston on the same > prediction at least couple years back. I was biting my tongue, but now you mention it... I did a presentation pack in early 2004 to the New Zealand Network Operators Group on this topic: (http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2004-01-28-trashing.pdf - see slides 32 - 37) But, as the pack points out, it arose from some IAB work in 2003 that was presented to the IETF plenary at IETF 59 in 2003 about the implications of an increasingly hostile internet. Geoff _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram