Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard"
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 20 October 2008 07:04 UTC
Return-Path: <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v4v6interim-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v4v6interim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332C13A6883; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7C63A685A for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRvKxLDNkCju for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com (ind-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.129.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772963A68F4 for <v4v6interim@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,449,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="31221155"
Received: from hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com ([10.75.231.161]) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2008 07:05:23 +0000
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 m9K75M83017172; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:05:22 +0800
Received: from xbh-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-412.cisco.com [64.104.123.69]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9K75Mrx026898; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:05:22 GMT
Received: from xfe-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.71]) by xbh-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:05:22 +0800
Received: from [64.104.120.94] ([64.104.120.94]) by xfe-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:05:21 +0800
Message-Id: <F2C58F5B-4A97-4F86-8987-832F41424D6E@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <48FC2AFC.60405@it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:05:21 +0800
References: <B4A9FAB9-F39D-42AA-BE3B-AF6A3C48CC93@cisco.com> <4391DDA1-6432- 4DCD-8A38-F351C68058B5@muada.com><0F551636-8059-4C93-81F6-AB5421CD4F3F@cisco.com> <48FBC96D.5020207@cernet.edu.cn> <48FC2AFC.60405@it.uc3m.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2008 07:05:21.0589 (UTC) FILETIME=[378CEE50:01C93282]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1752; t=1224486322; x=1225350322; c=relaxed/simple; s=hkgdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[v4v6interim]=20=22IPv4->IPv6=20is=20ha rd=22 |Sender:=20; bh=AkO2fsbYjAJi36mCnkdvObBT+gRcvojJ+uX2a8ugCOE=; b=MwwsCd9HmVLX76ibp5cBWuAKyzsE/2eiAzMZspcZbE56RBnJxNd2rtkE+y WR0m9hfYuj2BQANPF+VaACbMtha3fIWetiEoUMHprnalO7ZSp3O8fO3+cn2y dr6+av6nhCx6I+khC/Q4ma0BD0nUGeMcBUsdQ19Xok7kULy6hptVc=;
Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim1002 verified; );
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard"
X-BeenThere: v4v6interim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of coexistence topics for the 01-Oct-2008 v4-v6 coexistence interim meeting <v4v6interim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/v4v6interim>
List-Post: <mailto:v4v6interim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
On Oct 20, 2008, at 2:53 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> (2) As the ISP, we price IVI addresses (1:1 mapping of IPv4 >> address, scarce resource) and non-IVI addresses (non-scarce >> resource) differently. So it is also economically reasonable. > Right, this is exactly what i would like to prevent, that ISPs have > control on whether their clients are able or not to publish content > from their sites Excuse me? Trust me, given that you attach to someone's network, they are in control of what services they offer you, and they are in a position to filter-or-whatever if they want. Given that you have a choice of offerings, they are not in control of the choices you make, but they can prevent you from making certain choices in their network by not offering you the choice. What Xing Li proposes - and what I propose - is not as onerous as you appear to believe. He gives you the option of paying for a directly (1:1) translatable address and he doesn't tell you what you may do with it. Given that, you have the option of paying for the service he is offering or paying for a different one, perhaps one from a different ISP - the same choice you have with any ISP. Given that you choose to pay for a 1:1 translatable address (just as you would with the NAT64 model), you can put any content behind that address that you want to. And in any event, I would really hope that we could avoid political agendas here. Last I checked, we're technologists and we are describing technology. Pretending that we are preventing ISPs from doing one thing or forcing them to do another is a pipe dream. Once it is deployed, they're in control. Let's work on the technology. _______________________________________________ v4v6interim mailing list v4v6interim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
- [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Mark Townsley
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Ed Jankiewicz
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Randy Bush
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Ed Jankiewicz
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Randy Bush
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Ed Jankiewicz
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Xing Li
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Xing Li
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Xing Li
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Mark Townsley
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Rémi Després
- Re: [v4v6interim] "IPv4->IPv6 is hard" Xing Li