Re: Why one Internet?

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Tue, 10 April 2012 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F18F21F85B9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aj7KksebkYHX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE5B21F85A8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489FE39E800B; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBirG0Dp4N8C; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (cpe-98-154-15-232.socal.res.rr.com [98.154.15.232]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D17DD39E8008; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4F844428.7050408@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:12:43 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFE5F736-96D3-4E8F-9917-985BDA6910AE@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <CACQuieahKvE3VRPXcCirc4zhHokpkQVsMUDdcrjkZdNoSKpidg@mail.gmail.com> <2A473079-6CF0-49B9-93CD-F0BA27500CEF@cs.ucla.edu> <4F844428.7050408@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:12:52 -0000

Hi Brian, 

I was not questioning about connectivity (or divide Internet).
I was just looking for an explanation of how the proposal could be MORE effective *and* more economical.

Lixia

On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Lixia,
> 
> The original note says "I think it is possible to locate the node we need."
> 
> So, the idea is apparently not to divide the Internet - it is simply to deal
> with the fact that addresses would be ambiguous. Since we have 15 years
> experience of the pain caused by ambiguous addresses, and a perfectly good
> 128 bit address space that avoids any need for ambiguous addresses, I don't
> see the point. It isn't even worth sending the code.
> 
> Pars,
> 
> Your original note also says "I am not here to discuss these details." Sorry,
> but in the IETF it's *exactly* the details that we must discuss; that's our
> job. We've been doing so since 1992 to my personal knowledge.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian