RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology

Chad Giffin <> Sat, 21 June 2008 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7A33A6946; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0033A6887 for <>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esYZQce+WURD for <>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CE63A6868 for <>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU120-W25 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:56 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU120-W25A3AE11ED3FB3DEA0AB30CAA40@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: []
From: Chad Giffin <>
To: Stephen Kent <>
Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:07:56 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2008 18:07:56.0369 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB433410:01C8D3C9]
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:22:11 -0400
> To:
> From:
> Subject: Re: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> CC:
> Chad,
> I doubt that you will receive much useful feedback from IETF members.

Why would you say this?  This is a proposal for an Internet protocol.

> Your proposal suggested changes to IPv6. [...]

I am not suggesting any changes to IPv6.

> [...] That is essentially a
> non-starter, and thus your proposal probably will be ignored by the
> vast majority of IETF members. [...]

I may be speaking out of turn here... I do not believe for a second that my proposal is being ignored.  What I feel is that people are awaiting a startup of discussion on the matter.

Anonymity on the Internet is a HUGE issue.  People want this.  The IETF mailing list seems, to me, the place to discuss this.  What kind of show of support are you looking for?

> [...] The IETF has worked for many years to
> refine the IPv6 design, and to deal with the many ways that IPv6
> impacts other parts of the Internet. ANY suggestion to make a
> substantive charge to IPv6 will not be well received at this stage.
> The RNET proposal calls for MANY such changes, both in end systems
> that want to participate and in routers. [...]

The RNET proposal is VERY simple and elegant.  It does not call for MANY changes at all.  It does NOT change IPv6.  It simply adds a new style of route table handling, ie: it allows a remote host to add a route table entry for itself.

How is this /changing/ IPv6?

> [...] Also, as noted by others,
> there are elements of RNET that look like existing NAT traversal
> technologies already defined in RFCs.

I agree it is similar to NAT traversal technologies, however, it is more than that as well.

I submit to you this: the military is upset at this proposed protocol.  There is pressure to prevent it from becomming.  Why don't we impliment the protocol and allow police forces and the military access to the RNET membership list.

> Steve

Yours Truly,

Chad Christopher Giffin
a.k.a. "typo"


IETF mailing list