[BBLISA] anybody doing IPv6 for real operations?/possible presentation topic

[Internaut at Large]

Greetings,

On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 13:24 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Internaut at Large wrote:
> 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 17:25 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Except that there is no killer IPV6 app or service.  There is no one
> > > > > thing that anyone "just has to do". After 15 years of pie in sky,
> > > > > IPV6
> > > > 
> > > > Oh please, can't we all just get along?
> > > > 
> > > > Slow down, cowboy.  I didn't say IPv6 was good or bad.  Did I?
> > > 
> > > No...
> > 
> > Hrm ... IPSec is a pretty good killer app.  And the fact that the US
> > Government has mandated being ready for it, is pretty good in my book as
> > well.
> 
> IPSec runs on IPv4. Its no reason to change to IPV6.  It could easily
> run on CLNS, too.  Its no reason to change to CLNS, either.

Sure, but (amount of effort needed to get IPv4 + IPSec running) >=
(amount of effort needed to get IPv6 running, and you get IPSec for
free)

Because every machine, and every router still needs to be touched, and
many apps need to be changed.

> > not an ISP, I want my machines reachable by number not having to
> > create temporary, elaborate SSH tunnels all over the place to get
> > through the NAT at my work, through the NAT at the ISP, and then
> > through the third NAT at my house, because IPv4 is scarce.
> 
> Ah. Well, to the extent the ISP will allow that, CLNS enables a wider
> address space, too. But ISPs dont' want to allow this for commercial
> reasons and because that's what botnets need, as well, while mom&pop
> don't really need it.

Mom and Pops, students, researchers, Work From Home, families who live
in diverse areas, all can and would appreciate the ability to directly
connect with their various customers, schools, projects, companies,
other family members, without having to have to broker an outside
connection, or do massive amounts of tunneling would find their lives
much easier.  Need?  Well ... I don't believe the Internet is on
Maslow's hierarchy directly, but ... for a business to succeed, to pass
their classes, to succeed on their projects, to not have to commute in,
or move to satisfy connectivity issues, or to be able to live where one
wants, and still maintain family ties, all rank on that Needs list.  So
I'd argue that we all do both need and want it.  Just because the ISP
wants to be a paternalistic, controlling, "Momma knows what's best for
you" entity and wants to dictate terms to me ... Dean, you are
advocating that the ISP be to us, how you feel ARIN is to you.  Think
about it for a minute.  And, wait, you _are_ that ISP ... deciding
unilaterally, and trying to convince other ISPs to decide the way you
do ... sounds like you are actually emulating the people you put your
screed up about ...

> > I think "having my machines be servers and reachable" is rather nice.
> 
> Sure it would be.  But IPV6 isn't going to deliver that for
> administrative reasons;

It is until an ISP cuts you off.  Thankfully, soon, I will be able to
reach other ISPs at a reasonable speed.

>  its turned off by the ISP. 

Thank you, Big Brother.

>  CLNS will be exactly
> the same in that respect: Possible, but home computers as servers isn't
> going to fly.  Certainly not for everyone.

Home computers as servers should be the way of it.  It's a pity you
don't see that, and your view, is restricting freedom, connection,
commerce, communications, and possibly the discoveries and research of
the future.  How is that coal heating working out for you?

And IPv6 has it _now_ CLNS might be able to be built with it, later.
Perhaps, you are simply delaying until you can build it for _your_
favorite tool?

> > And having IPSec built in is also a bonus.
> 
> Its built into IPV4, too.

No, it's back-ported, not robust, and involves just as much changes as
migrating to IPv6.

> > >   All the bells and whistles of IPV6 have been cut out.
> > 
> > Which of your favorite toys were cut out?  Let's see, IPSec, Automatic
> > recognization via MAC address, ISP independence, and ... well ...
> > access.  Those are nice bells and whistles for me.

Interesting that you didn't answer the question ... let me ask again ...
Which of your favorite toys were cut out?

> I think you misunderstand something about IPSec. It has nothing to do
> with IPV6, per se. 

Except it was written for, and with IPv6, and built into IPv6.  Or if
you are insisting otherwise, perhaps you misunderstand something about
IPSec.

>  IPV4 also has "Automatic recognization via MAC
> address" (DHCP).  But IPv6 doesn't have ISP independence, and never did.

No, DHCP is not part of IPv4, DHCP is a program designed to compensate
for the limitations of IPv4, is a child of bootp, and while can be
configured, in _each_ local area, individually, by decisions of each
local area's respective admins, to do specific things with MAC
addresses, or not, as the case may be, IPv6 does it globally, built into
the protocol, and will allow my machine to have the appropriate
addressing, and be reachable no matter who's IPv6 network I'm hanging
off of.  So I can get the video calls from my daughter on her dig site,
no matter if I'm at work, at home, at a cafe ... I can participate in
the con-call of my team, as they can, no matter where in the world they
are at the moment, peer-to-peer, so we aren't sharing our conversation
with some outside broker, who might or might not be listening in ... or
the like.  You seem to be saying "Yes that cell-phone is really cool,
but I've got a 100' cord on my wall-phone, so I can just about reach
everything on the first floor of my house, while I'm on the phone, too."

> > >   Really all you have left is wider addresses and a slew of
> > > brokenness to use it.  And IPV6 will be slower and go less places.
> > 
> > Why will it be slower and go less places?  I mean, that's what people
> > said when we were switching from UUCP to IPv4, that so few people use
> > it, most of the network will remain UUCP ...
> 
> I never heard anyone say that.

The University I had to convince to expand into IPv4 did.  Perhaps _you_
in particular didn't hear it, or didn't listen when it was said in your
presence.  And, to return the favour, you are the only one who I've
heard say "IPv6 will be slower and go less places."  And now you've
heard me say the above about UUCP vs IPv4, so ... you have to adjust
your claims now.  Or not listen, so you can continue to claim you never
heard anyone say something in particular.

>   I had UUCP leased lines back in the day.  
> Everyone I knew was craving the internet connection, back when you had 
> to have a research purpose to get a connection.

Perhaps, some of us predate you a touch?  Sounds like you joined just
after everyone was selling the benefits of IPv4, and the researchers,
finally decided it was a good thing, and such a good thing they wanted
it only for themselves.

> It will be slower because of the large packet size and lack of payload,

Interesting.  Are you saying that because more can be transmitted, it
will be slower?  Fascinating.

> and because of the tunnels,

Except, I'm going so slowly now, because of all the tunnels, I have to
set up to compensate for all the NATs I have to hop through.  One tunnel
(the IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4) was much faster for me than the
temporary tunnel I have to build, to get through my ISP's NAT to the
world, and then the tunnel I have to put under it, to access the VPN,
through the ISP providing for the company I work for, then tunnel into
the VPN, and then my SSH tunnel to my desktop machine.  One tunnel would
be a delight.  And if I find two ISP who are actually willing to be IPv6
end to end, maybe I can use one, and convince my company to use the
other, and ... I don't have to tunnel at all.  But you, Dean, and your
ISP oligarchy seem to be keeping that power for yourselves.  Nicely
done, recreating ARIN with the power in your own hands, not even doling
it out to your friends ...

>  and because DNS will fall back to TCP and
> take much longer;

DNS is currently IPv4 _or_ IPv6 capable.  What are you talking about?

>  because tunnels are inefficient ways to communicate.

I know, and you are keeping me in a whole bunch of them.  Simply by not
switching to IPv6.  Quit it, will ya?

> and these "misfeatures" will keep people wanting IPV4 protocols.

These "misfeatures" that you are promoting and holding onto?  I see
where the problem lies.  Thanks.

> > > > Discussions of beauty and truth weren't requested.
> > > 
> > > No, but discussion of practicality is.  IPV6 isn't practical, CLNS
> > > actually is.
> > 
> > CLNS and TP4 are useful if you are an ISP, but for a standard company?
> > You've got to be kidding.  Using a "Connectionless" interface, hoping
> > your packets get there?  
> 
> IP is connectionless. We seem to get by.

And yet, you are saying we won't.  Interesting.  Double-speak, again
Dean.

> > I'd rather use X.25, thank you very much.
> 
> You did, and do now. Frame Relay was X.25 simplified. MPLS is frame 
> relay fast.  We used Frame Relay and now MPLS to deliver IP packets.

I'm aware of that, which is why I said I'd rather it.  Try reading the
words, Dean.

> > And, in case you missed it, I'm very happy about IPSec which CLNS has no
> > concept of security for.
> 
> You could run IPSec over CLNS.

Sure, and I could sit down and write a design for it, build it, trump it
about, hope it spreads enough to be useful to me, hope that my work is
robust enough, and maybe, even, if those pesky ISPs would adopt it, even
get it to a useful state, or I can ... let me see ... use IPv6, which
has it already built in, is a standard, has many companies, coding to
that standard, and, well, frankly, works.

> > I mean, it's great for telephones, and ... Decnet (remember that?) but
> > ... really, unless you are an ISP, it's somewhat ... the wrong tool
> > for the job.
> 
> Actualy, the ISO protocols are related to Decnet; You wouldn't be too
> far wrong in saying it is Decnet standardized and generalized for a
> global network.

I know, I helped work with them, back in the day, Dean.  Which is why I
mentioned it.  Read what I wrote, Dean.

> CLNS has nothing more to do with telephones than IP does.  The ITU also 
> write standards for ISDN and SS7, but those are entirely different 
> protocols, not even related by derivation.

Interesting position you have there.  Go and read the histories or talk
to the people who worked on the projects, if you don't want to listen to
me, Dean.  Really.  Other people, besides me, I mean.

> > > > You called IPv6 a failure.  Technically, we won't know if it is a
> > > > failure until we run out of IPv4 addresses.  I never thought it would
> > > > actually be deployed until the last minute.  Did anyone fix Y2K issues
> > > > in the 1980s?
> > > 
> > > Failure and futile efforts at deployment are different.  Before you get
> > > root to 20,000 routers, you need to have a plan, not just a wonderful
> > > vision of utopia after the revolution.
> > 
> > Now that sounds _exactly_ like a quote from the beginning of the Y2K
> > years.  Remember Microsoft 98 (released two years before Y2K) needed Y2K
> > patches.  Besides, many routers already run IS-IS, which is happy to
> > pass IPv6.  Oh, wait, you make that point elsewhere, so ... aren't you
> > arguing both sides of this?
> 
> No.  We have to setup CLNS & IS-IS to get IPV6.

Why do _you_ have to set up CLNS and IS-IS for _me_ to get IPv6?

>   But rather than go on 
> to IPV6, having already setup CLNS and IS-IS, we should just use CLNS 
> for everything.

Because CLNS won't do what I want it to do at this present point in
time, and IPv6 will?

>   Which just means dropping TCP and UDP, IPSec, etc onto 
> CLNS framed packets. 

Or other eth-types, modifying all the software out there to translate
(aka tunnel ... remember your distaste for that?) to/from CLNS when we
can simply use ... IPv6?  Which exists, and is being used, and is a, let
me remind you, mandate, from all US Government contractors, and internal
systems, and has already been deployed in widening, interconnected
pools?

> > > > True, there are no killer apps today. Except the 2 that I mentioned.
> > > > The other killer app is "any ISP that has a business plan that depends
> > > > on growth past 2012". That's a very meaningful and real business case
> > > > for ISPs, hosting companies, and large web-based businesses.  Sadly
> > > > there aren't more than handful of those in the world.  Plus, that's an
> > > > indirect benefit.  People don't buy a car, they buy a way to get from
> > > > point A to point B.
> > > 
> > > ISPs will continue to grow after 2012 on IPV4.  End users get more NATs.  
> > > E.g Comcast needs very few public IP addresses. Comcast doesn't need a
> > > nationwide-unique RFC1918 address space either (they complained that
> > > they have more than 24 million devices)  Most of the billions of IPV4
> > > users are residential clients of a few million servers. Only servers
> > > need public IP addresses. There really aren't that many servers,
> > > especially when you consider that a load balancer only needs one IP to
> > > front many servers.
> > 
> > Right, I forgot, you are ISP-centric.  
> 
> I wouldn't go that far. I serve and consult to companies, who just want
> to get information from one place to another. I've never met a CEO who
> cared much what protocol was used to do that.

I've met a few ... and worked for a few, but I'll allow you your limited
experience, because you are young, and probably don't get to consult for
companies that are run by folks who really do care, and understand the
difference.  It does, however sound like your consulting consists of
telling them which ISP, from your buddies, to use, to lock them into
your particular controlling pool.

I also didn't say you were ISP-only, just ISP-centric, as in, being an
ISP is central to your identity, while you might do other things, as
well.  So, yes, I'd say you are very ISP-centric.

> > The rest of us who actually look at our machines as _servers_ are not
> > being served by your idea of a good network.  Really.
> 
> Companies usually have servers. AV8 specializes in companies.  

Excellent.  And where are those servers?  How are they reached?  Can
they be reached by the employees directly (without a tunnel) in a secure
fashion, regardless of where they are in the world?

> Residential customers generally don't have servers.

Wrong.  Just ... wrong.  Well ... at least it would be wrong, if ISPs
weren't trying to control it.

>  Unless you are an IT
> guy (like those on BBLISA), /most/ people don't run servers at home. 

Let's see.  I'm no longer technically an IT guy.  My neighbor, who I had
to help to be able to get in touch with his company securely, is not an
IT guy.  The kids who wanted to advertise their services, out of their
home, for raking, snow-removal, dog-walking, and the like, couldn't just
use their computer, but had to actually arrange with an outside service,
which limits them (because they aren't a full company, and can't bear
the cost of an AV8, or the like) to what they can do and put up.  They
aren't IT children.  The lovely geriatric lady, who had to give up her
weekly bridge game, because she is having real troubles getting down her
stairs, and can't drive anymore, who asked me if I could set something
up for her and her friends to be able to play "over that new
video-telephone thing" isn't and IT lady, but would like at least one
server, if not two.  The students in the various housing near me would
really love to be able to not have to go in and use the school servers
for their projects, which is why they bought the nice computers, to be
their servers, but they are not IT students.  And that's all within
walking distance of my house.  Yes, there is Mrs. Teddiotian, who thinks
computers are the devil, the cell phone beams messages from the
government into her brain, and her daughter consorts with the Devil
Himself, because she saw them kissing on the porch, when he dropped her
off, but ... I would not say that is "most".  Where does your "most" map
to?  Are you counting the aboriginal tribes in the outback, to cover
your numbers?

> Getting a static IP from Comcast or Verizon (etc) is always a pain in
> the butt.

In more ways than I like to think about.  Yes.  Thank you.  Whereas with
IPv6 I wouldn't need to go through that pain, and they wouldn't need to
make it a pain.

>   Services like dyndns exist just to service people like us
> that have servers at home on slowly changing non-static IPs.

Another patch and tunnel, that is going to slow things down, that is a
work-around for what IPv6 just provides?  Thanks.

>  Some
> residential providers have completely removed public IPs from their
> customers to prevent them from running servers.

I know.  Thank you ISPs for making us the enemies, instead of taking
care of it themselves.  And putting things that cripple normal business,
and normal pursuits, instead of actually attacking the problem and
dealing with the offenders directly.  You really aren't going to win on
that tact.

> Changing to IPV6 or CLNS isn't going to change the administrative rules. 

Nope.  That's because you ISPs, as a ARIN replacement, want to keep all
the power to yourselves, and not allow it to rest in the hands of
individuals.

> If you think that you will get to run a server at home under IPV6, I
> think you are mistaken.

Awwwe  Mommy, PLEASE let me?  I've been an adult for a while, really I
have.

>   It isn't lack of IP space that prevents that 
> now.

Actually, you are right.  It's ISPs directly who do, who found the power
originally because we were choked with too many demands for IP numbers,
and saw the power and grabbed it.  So it's a root cause, but not the
actual bad-guys.

Thanks for pointing that out.

>   Its administrative rules;

Set up by ... the ISPs!

>  the residential carriers don't want to 
> allow that.

Because, they have to have power.  Cool!  The telephone company doesn't
really care if you have a PBX or just a phone, but the ISPs seem to.  Go
you!

>   The tools to prevent that are getting quite sophisticated, 
> and don't go away because they change to IPv6.

Well, except then there will be a lot more direct, computer-to-computer
conenction, encrypted communication, and the ISPs can't play Mommy and
Daddy as much as they would like, anymore.

But that, has absolutely nothing to do with deploying IPv6.

> > > After that, IP addresses are used for infrastructure. CLNS can be
> > > used instead, again without router upgrades.  There's no need for
> > > routers to have IPV4 addresses; they just have to be able to route
> > > CLNS packets that connect users to servers. Think MPLS on the global
> > > network.
> > 
> > Actually, a lot of routers, while happy with IS-IS, don't have CLNS or
> > X.25 enabled on them.  We're back to your "root on 20,000 routers"
> > problem, I think.
> 
> You aren't the first to be confused by the requirements for running
> IS-IS, or the relation of X.25 to CLNS.  I think it has to do with
> muliple standards bodies naming entirely unrelated protocols with "X" as
> the first letter.  I can't explain why they did that.  X.25 has no
> relationship to CLNS, just like ISDN and SS7 have no relationship to
> CLNS; X.25 was a forerunner to frame relay and MPLS, and was
> standardized by CCITT, a completely different organization from the
> ITU/ISO. Anyway, in order to run IS-IS (routing protocol over CLNS) you
> have to enable CLNS protocol on the interface and give the router a ISO
> address, and each the interface an ISO network.

Exactly, you have to touch each of the 20,000 routers, to do your
solution, or the thing you said was impossible (IPv6) because you have
to touch each of the 20,000 routers ... Oh, and X.25 is more than just
Frame Relay, it's also the basis for CONS, the other half of CLNS.  Just
in case you were ignorant of that simple little fact.

> Once IS-IS is working, ISO CLNS frames will be routed thoughout the
> network.  Other things can send and recieve CLNS frames besides IS-IS.

Once IPv6 is working, IP frames will be routed through out the network.
Other things can send and receive IP frames besides IPv6.

Interesting, eh?

> IS-IS is very similar to OSPF. To run OSPF, you need the router to have 
> an IP address, and you need each interface to have an IP network. Once 
> you get OSPF running, IP frames will be routed thoughout the network.
> 
> To say that you can run IS-IS without CLNS is like saying you can run 
> OSPF without IP.

Exactly.  Can I see a show of hands, please?  How many companies are
running IP?  How many CLNS?  Thank you.  Now, how much training
difference will you need for your folks, however few, to get them to
understand the difference between IPv4 and IPv6?  Very little?  Thanks.
How about IPv4 and CLNS?  Lots?  Right.  Thank you all for this little,
informal pole.  And no one gets fired because of it.

> To say that you can have IS-IS working, but not route other CLNS packets
> is like saying you can have OSPF working, but can't route other IP
> packets (like telnet).  

Actually, many ISPs do just that.  And you were bragging about it,
above.

> > > > Will there be an app that directly draws people to IPv6?  No.  It
> > > > is a chicken and egg problem.  However, AFTER ipv6 is widely
> > > > deployed I predict killer apps will arise.
> > > 
> > > After I win the lottery, I predict BBLISA will have free beer and
> > > massages at every meeting.  Don't hold your breath, I don't play the
> > > lottery.
> > 
> > No, but those of us who do find windfalls often share it, so ... your
> > argument lacks, my friend.  
> 
> It does lack, but I think you missed the point. AFTER is the key word in
> both statements.  It is no good to promise what will happen AFTER.

After I get up in the morning, I will do work?  After I start using
IPv6, I can connect to things directly?  After I start typing this
message, I will send it?  What _are_ you talking about?

> > Besides, many things exist, and are used
> > without a "killer app" like ... hrm ... let me think, oh, yes, IPv4,
> > CLNS, IS-IS ...
> 
> IPV4 had at least two killer apps that UUCP didn't have:  FTP and
> Telnet.

FTP does the same thing that Unix to Unix Copy did.  Just less fast.
BZZZT!  Do you even _know about the technologies you are talking about?
And Bitnet had connections similar to telnet, but we aren't using Bitnet
at the moment everywhere, are we?  Again, your argument falls short.

>   The ability to browse what was available and immediately get
> it.

Immediately was seldom touted as an improvement, nor an actuality.  I
could get a list of files, then choose what files I wanted.  With some
turn-around, time, granted, but it wasn't that great, and no one had
"instant" on the mind, even after FTP was available.

>  UUCP could transfer files, but it took like a day, and sometimes it
> didn't work;  you'd look at the list of files, pick one, get the address
> wrong, and a day later, you got an error back.

My you had really crappy skills, and a very slow UUCP connection.  Ours
was every half-hour, and, if it was urgent, you could request an
"immediate" connection.  Besides, people were too busy reading netnews
to worry about "immediate".

>   Telnet would let you get
> into any number of machines quickly, without dialup, and since dialup
> with 300 or 1200 baud, a 56kbs IP line was blindingly fast. Even when
> telebit came out with 19kbs modems (which required connection to other
> telebit modems), the internet was still preferred.  So the stage was
> well set for commercialization in 1993.

WOW do you have your history wrong.  I'm impressed.  I'd bother to
correct you, but ... you haven't actually listened to a word I've said
this entire discussion, and, well ... I do have other things to do with
my life, besides teach you about the history of your business.

But, to take a short pieces from what you are saying, IPv6 will give us
_back_ telnet and FTP, those "killer apps" you think were so great, by
being able to directly connect to machines (as servers) that nowadays,
you have to send an email to your friend, who has to put the information
up on a public server, which will hopefully have the right information
on it, for you to pull down to your machine, which can take much more
than that day.

> > > > I don't know what they are but they will be in the category of "things
> > > > you can do in a world without NAT", or one might simplify that to
> > > > just: "The benefit of IPv6 is that everyone can be their own server".  
> > > > P2P will go from being a fringe/rare thing, to a common way of doing
> > > > things.  Not for file sharing, but for everything: IM, phone calls,
> > > > and hopefully apps that we can't imagine today.
> > > 
> > > This was one of the pie in the sky promises. While there is address
> > > space, your residential ISP won't let you be your own server. You'll
> > > still be behind a NAT to IPV4 servers, or a NAT to IPV6 servers. The NAT
> > > is to ensure you aren't running a server at home.
> > 
> > Right, and that's _exactly_ my problem.  _YOU_ are trying to restrict
> > what _I_ might do with _MY_ servers, the bandwidth _I've_ leased, etc.
> > Thank you very much Big Brother, but, I'd rather run my servers on my
> > own.  
> 
> Err. no. The ISP has no care what you do.

Actually you ISPs seem to.  At least, that's what is communicated to us
poor peons, the ones without the power.

>  Its a matter of money. 

It always is.

> Servers cost money;

Sure. I've got my server right here.  Except it can't be reached,
because my ISP, who I want to be able to pay that nice money to, in
reasonable amounts, doesn't want me to have a server.

>  Companies have money.

They do.  The ISP is a company, that doesn't want me to use my server,
even if I give them the almighty dollar.

>  Residential mom&pop just want
> their youtube to work, and pay the least possible.

Wrong.  Sorry.  Read what I wrote above, please.

>  ISPs make that 
> distinction happen by blocking servers to residential customers.

So they are spending (and costing) more money to put more servers in the
way of what should simply be a switched network, slowing down the
traffic by looking at each packet, costing more money to make sure that
Mom and Pop are not, say using their server to have the security cameras
in their store streamed to their home computer, and be able to respond
via voice, or image to someone breaking into the bread-shop, or
vandalizing their windows.  Right.  Your argument lacks, except that,
it's not money you ISPs want, it's power and control.

> > I like my direct connects, I like being able to get to my data,
> > and use my various compute farms, that I've set up, directly.  This, I
> > think, is the heart of the problem.  You, as an ISP-individual, are used
> > to the Paternalistic Controlling of what I do.  Well, thank you very
> > much, but I'm an adult, and I should be able to get along just fine
> > without your foot on my neck.
> 
> You know, I am the president of the LPF, which fights software patents; 
> people who really do have a foot on your neck.

And you object to ARIN, and yet, you put that same foot on my neck.
"They can't be allowed to, because it's my neck too, but you peons, my
foot is just fine on your neck."  Thanks.

> > > > "The benefit of IPv6 is that you can be the server (again.. like in
> > > > the 1990s before NAT)"
> > > 
> > > This just isn't true. There isn't space in the routing table for
> > > everyone to have their own block like in the early 1990s.  Cisco talks
> > > about a new router that can handle 2 million routes. Well, that still
> > > doesn't give end users their own address block.  It was never size of
> > > the address space that ARIN/IANA was managing, it was size of the
> > > routing table.
> > 
> > Hrm ... Is that a failure of IS-IS I hear you mentioning?  Perhaps,
> > there should be several more layers?  Say 4?  Your 4th layer can be the
> > backbone, the 3rd layer can be the big pools of population, your 2nd
> > layer might be the local neighborhood, with the 1st layer talking to
> > each of the companies, or the like.  You would need layer 1-2, layer 2-3
> > and layer 3-4 machines as well, at each of the borders, but ... it would
> > be more robust, now, wouldn't it?
> 
> Actually, the layers of which you speak were invented by the ISO, in the 
> development of the ISO packet protocols including CLNS, and IS-IS, 
> x.400, x.500 (you might have heard of X.509 certificates).

And their light-weight equivalents.  Yes.  But what does that have to do
with my suggestion?  I know who codified them (some of them personally),
but why not re-codify them, allow more layers, which will allow it to
actually work?

> > Maybe that's the "killer ap" as in IPv6 will be the killer ap that will
> > actually get something that doesn't aggregate all the routes all over
> > the world, but deals better with ARP requests.
> > 
> > I think you just don't want to change the way you are doing things,
> > which is why you are throwing the wet blanket over our IPv6 movement.
> > Do you still heat your house with coal?
> 
> No, CLNS will change things. It has a variable up to 20 byte address
> space, bigger than IPV6. It will change things, too. Just not in the way
> that you think---I think mostly because you misunderstand the how
> certain issues relate to address space size.

Granted 160 bits is bigger than 128 bits, by quite a bit, but it is also
not IP, not widely deployed in the companies that want to use IP, and
does not have the built-in things that IPv6 comes with, much less
whatever bells and whistles you were enamored with, that were left out.

Answer the questions posed, please?

-dkap, fallen down the Dean Spiral, perhaps