The Telecom Digest for August 25, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 230 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:54:51 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <pan.2010.08.24.04.54.49.208917@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:00:12 -0500, PV wrote:
.........
> We've had this scare before and NAT killed it. Unfortunately, it looks
> like some ISPs stole a page from that and are wrapping large chunks of
> users behind a NAT routing instead of fixing it the RIGHT way, and just
> getting on with IPv6 already. It seems to be an approach you see in other
> countries more than the US, likely because the US has huge chunks of IPv4
> space already, and a lot of over-allocation still.
.........
Isn't it a matter of reality that so many current Internet users do not
really need a dedicated IP address so the current paradigm of NAT
allocation simply does the job for their needs?
If you examined it even further, one average Internet users will never
(ever) need the total 64K ports currently available on each IPv4
address, and they could easily live with a small subset of those opening
up the option of sharing one single IPv4 address among many Internet users.
What does taking that path do to the supposed shortage of IPv4 addresses?
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: 24 Aug 2010 15:02:20 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <20100824150220.61404.qmail@joyce.lan>
>Isn't it a matter of reality that so many current Internet users do not
>really need a dedicated IP address so the current paradigm of NAT
>allocation simply does the job for their needs?
Yes, of course, but that's not the IETF party line so we're not
supposed to think about it.
>What does taking that path do to the supposed shortage of IPv4 addresses?
It suggests that once the addresses run out, there will be a market
and the prices will be quite reasonable unless you want a large
contiguous block. The real bottleneck will be the number of different
globally visible routes, which increases every time you subdivide a block,
but nobody has ever been able to figure out how to charge for them.
I expect IPv6 to be quite popular within networks, e.g., Comcast's
cable network is going to v6, but you'll always be able to get to
everything of interest via v4.
R's,
John
***** Moderator's Note *****
The "claim to fame" of IPV6 is that it has provision for inclusion of
a globally unique ID in every packet, and that's the stuff of
Marketeer's wet dreams. When your Ipod (or whatever...) is (for
practical purposes) identified with _you_, then the data miners have
struck the salesman's gold of having a record of everything that
interest's you, everyone you communicate with, and everyplace you've
ever been.
IPV4 will give way: there's money to be made, and the statisticians
are licking their chops while thinking of the coming tsunami of
information.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:44:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <i51aur$1ken$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
To article <20100824150220.61404.qmail@joyce.lan>, the moderator
appended:
>The "claim to fame" of IPV6 is that it has provision for inclusion of
>a globally unique ID in every packet, and that's the stuff of
>Marketeer's wet dreams.
Nonsense. Or rather: we already have that now (modulo the
locator/identifier distinction); IPv6 simply allows there to be enough
such identifiers for everyone in the world to have a quintillion of
them each. You can generate a new one at random every second if you
so choose, assuming you're not stuck with a fascist ISP who only gives
you a /126 instead of a proper /64 network.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:17:51 -0500
From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <vY-dnV8Idf7iW-7RnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@supernews.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
>Isn't it a matter of reality that so many current Internet users do not
>really need a dedicated IP address so the current paradigm of NAT
>allocation simply does the job for their needs?
For browsers, sure. But you can't run bittorrent, a VPN, or any type of
protocol with an inbound component, even for temporary use. I want nothing
to do with an ISP that NATs all its users for that reason.
>If you examined it even further, one average Internet users will never
>(ever) need the total 64K ports currently available on each IPv4
>address, and they could easily live with a small subset of those opening
>up the option of sharing one single IPv4 address among many Internet users.
No ISP that NATifies their users give them any inbound ports that I've
seen. So if you're set up this way, you have no solicited inbound. Bye bye
filesharing, even LEGITIMATE filesharing like many commercial games
companies use to distribute patches.
>What does taking that path do to the supposed shortage of IPv4 addresses?
In the long term, nothing. It's another bandaid, and in a couple more years
you'll need another one. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:37:22 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <pan.2010.08.24.22.37.20.23818@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:17:51 -0500, PV wrote:
> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
>>Isn't it a matter of reality that so many current Internet users do not
>>really need a dedicated IP address so the current paradigm of NAT
>>allocation simply does the job for their needs?
>
> For browsers, sure. But you can't run bittorrent, a VPN, or any type of
> protocol with an inbound component, even for temporary use. I want nothing
> to do with an ISP that NATs all its users for that reason.
>
Agreed, but with so many mobile devices now gobbling up IP addresses do
they really need to do this? How many web sites will you want to host
on a Blackberry, iPhone etc?
>>If you examined it even further, one average Internet users will never
>>(ever) need the total 64K ports currently available on each IPv4 address,
>>and they could easily live with a small subset of those opening up the
>>option of sharing one single IPv4 address among many Internet users.
>
> No ISP that NATifies their users give them any inbound ports that I've
> seen. So if you're set up this way, you have no solicited inbound. Bye bye
> filesharing, even LEGITIMATE filesharing like many commercial games
> companies use to distribute patches.
>
Maybe, but - in the commercial world, at least - the majority of
workstations are behind NAT with no incoming port requirements and they
all work fine so far.
>>What does taking that path do to the supposed shortage of IPv4
>>addresses?
>
> In the long term, nothing. It's another bandaid, and in a couple more
> years you'll need another one. *
Well, that's the point really. The current way of doing things is to
create various bandaids to keep IPv4 useable, and it seems reasonably
effective (at the moment).
I'm from a tech background so I see the advantages and "purity" of an
Internet that can provide all these resources to everyone who is
connected, but in the real world that may not be the priority and an
Internet that is basically 'good enough' and propped up by various
bandaids may well prevail.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:10:40 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <pan.2010.08.24.05.10.37.681485@myrealbox.com>
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:46:39 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:00:07 +1000, David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
> wrote,
.........
>>The thing known as the Internet is a bit like the public roads that have
>>to handle differently sized vehicles from bicycles to massive
>>multi-trailer trucks. It is (overall) very inefficient to set up one
>>common resource to do this sort of thing, but because it has evolved this
>>way there is now no room for any viable alternative and we all have to
>>live with it.
>
> That's true, but at this stage the roads are like old wooden railroad
> trestles creaking under heavy trucks. The essence of internet is not the
> protocols; it's the business model, a voluntary agreement among network
> operators to exchange traffic for their mutual benefit. Protocols are just
> tools.
>
Well, the "business model" now is essentially getting some sort of
pre-agreed data communication from Point-A to Point-B in a cost-effective
manner, and unless someone comes up with an alternative to the current
(now ubiquitous) IPv4 based Internet that meets that criteria then I can't
see a change happening.
The majority of Internet users now care little for how the underlying
infrastructure works (unlike the early days of the 'net), they just care
that it does work and it will be a very hard sell to convince them that
there needs to be such a change for something that they perceive as 'not
broken'.
As with Climate Change, I suspect that there will have to be some massive
(and obvious) negative impact that affects virtually all Internet users
before much motivation for change emerges.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <i5163c$1l6$2@news.albasani.net>
PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote:
>Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl> writes:
>>PV <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in
>><KJ-dnb5N5fLrEe_RnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
>>>Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> writes:
>>>>For more information on why we think TCP/IP is obsolete and you
>>>>shouldn't waste your time on IPv6,
>>IPv6 development started around 1991. Almost 20 years later we're within
>>a year of IPv4 depletion at the first level[1]. Enjoy trying to publish
>I didn't write the original message, Mr. Goldstein did. I was responding to
>his wacky message. Careful with attributions!
He piggybacked his followup on your article, but he did not misattribute
his text to you. Your complaint is limited to a stranded attribution line,
not misattribution.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Simplifying the Lives of Web Users
Message-ID: <i515tc$1l6$1@news.albasani.net>
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>Koos,
>I just love one of your header lines:
> X-Zen: Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>It's a pity that only header-hackers get to see it!
Huh?
Bill, I cannot see it because you deleted it. I didn't realize you
weren't preserving all headers from the proto article.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Adam, I'm not, but the process that's set up to allow me to moderate
the Digest has to make some compromises in order to work effectively,
and one of them is that headers which might contain inappropriate
material have to be removed. It's very easy to slip things into
headers that I might not see: I don't look at the headers of every
post.
Questionable content is usually spammer's hacking the system: for
example, they put phony Spamassassin approval lines in their headers
all the time. There's no way to check every kind of header for proper
funciton and/or intent, especially with "X" headers, which are, by
definition, not standard.
Bill Horne
Moderator
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (8 messages)
|
| |
or 