Re: Why one Internet?

Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> Wed, 11 April 2012 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
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 A5DAC21F866B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.157
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 LYmZFfcWSiEY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C2721F866A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbtb4 with SMTP id tb4so1025282obb.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j/vT+Pnhfq1Kx/cwLWv6EZJ3qdp5q8CT5Ucmx66Tsok=; b=CmkEDhThVLvDxMdtcb+1XuZvMNKr03hwg/4yEzPJeH736kh9b0NtzwWbYKiH8uw3ww qxKMzYhcN3reUsVHdDF6KOAqCURvIEPtlPbOoECP/F8zRMZ16pbragABjXT/NDlkNFFs 0JhgPSwGFZn6559yHGTCHxoy/jEsH/ALjI4Pigwe67RJNg9lJ23XtmnccVF8Xg98L52d YhTfKnPNHlAAtzWuwg8Ki9/tZJkWoOxc6swTSrcAhyaw8jflgHDIvIaXWc/8zmXR3x9e gtPB9stWhStwDEfUOQ/35aMPsDc0fkaiDPNhmxtCHPpcp7mx5h8S4MHGI8N14jBK2hdV 3Akg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.27.170 with SMTP id u10mr20698615oeg.50.1334131540475; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.44.104 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204110945230.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <CACQuieahKvE3VRPXcCirc4zhHokpkQVsMUDdcrjkZdNoSKpidg@mail.gmail.com> <4F8481B1.2000101@gmail.com> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BB7026F4@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com> <CACQuieZxAxTH9UdbwPjZojOuRkhP7aY5KjuXS-=z4HxmgsTeHg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1204110945230.40024@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:05:40 +0300
Message-ID: <CACQuieZPrX=k1AvmUry_QJYQboQRcV8Vt5imWGr3k72vwn5H1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6433168dbd8c04bd62b4fe
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:05:41 -0000

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <
>> albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
>>
>>      Yes, that was also my reaction. Why one Internet? Because Internet
>> means tying together multiple separate networks. Of course you can have the
>> same
>>      addresses on the different networks. Nothing new there either.
>> That?s why we have NATs, NAPTs, and IPv6 NPTs.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      No one is forcing an ISP or an enterprise network to use a
>> combination of protocols. They can already opt to be IPv4 only, or IPv6
>> only, or dual
>>      stack, or eventually IPv7. Matter of fact, years ago, our enterprise
>> had an assortment of different networks, tied together by Softswitch
>> gateways.
>>      IPv4, SNA, DECnet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no problem with anyone. I am facing my own illusions.
>>
>> Here is my conclusion after years of work on IPv6.
>>
>> IPv6 guy is just a salesman.
>>
>> But the salesman thought the entire world should buy his product.
>>
>
> Not, but a reasonable technology for go forward with.
>
>
>> The product cannot change.
>>
>
> Wrong, See evolution of IPv6 in the past 10 years - lot has been changed -
> due to better understanding of requirements and drawback of certain
> solutions.
>
>
>
>> There is no other product.
>>
>
> Yes there are, but ipv6 seems to be most reasonable at the moment.
>
>
>
>> Not even sure the product was really needed.
>>
>
> See ipng work in the late 90's - it was requirement driven.
>
>
>> Complete delusion.
>>
>
>
> Please describe your conception in details - we can compare solutions
> based on technical merits.
>

Sorry I don't see the problem yet. I wouldn't design a solution nor discuss
its details.

Designing the future makes me suffer.

Pars



>        Best Regards,
>                        Janos Mohacsi
>
>
>
>> Pars
>>
>>
>>
>>      Bert
>>
>>
>>
>>      From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo
>>      Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:54 PM
>>      To: Pars Mutaf
>>      Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>>      Subject: Re: Why one Internet?
>>
>>
>>
>> Wasn't this what the Internet was supposed to be? I'm tempted to ask how
>> old you are, but I don't want to be rude.
>>
>> As the Monty Python would put it: 'You see, the key is in the name -
>> Inter - net(work)'
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>>