Acidus wrote:

I'm more interested in allocation of address space to these devices instead of domain names. These devices *must* have globally unique addresses. CIDR, NAT and other technologies that have slowed the consumption of IPv4 address won't help you here.

Sure they could. It just becomes a directory lookup, with roving physical addresses. Rather than give you my IP address, I give you a means of contacting me -- a phone number, a skype alias, whatever. When I establish a net connection, I register that location with my directory service, and that registration may be NAT:someopenport.

They have to have globally unique addresses, but the address space does not need to intersect with the other globally unique address spaces.

dmv wrote:

Sure they could. It just becomes a directory lookup, with roving physical addresses. Rather than give you my IP address, I give you a means of contacting me -- a phone number, a skype alias, whatever. When I establish a net connection, I register that location with my directory service, and that registration may be NAT:someopenport.

They have to have globally unique addresses, but the address space does not need to intersect with the other globally unique address spaces.

Good point. Kind of like those Dynamic DNS services.

dmv wrote:

Acidus wrote:

I'm more interested in allocation of address space to these devices instead of domain names. These devices *must* have globally unique addresses. CIDR, NAT and other technologies that have slowed the consumption of IPv4 address won't help you here.

Sure they could. It just becomes a directory lookup, with roving physical addresses. Rather than give you my IP address, I give you a means of contacting me -- a phone number, a skype alias, whatever. When I establish a net connection, I register that location with my directory service, and that registration may be NAT:someopenport.

They have to have globally unique addresses, but the address space does not need to intersect with the other globally unique address spaces.

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

In order to use some of these techniques (even things like diffserv), you need to have a stable routing structure and ideally, a good solid supernet of aggregated addresses to help with the administration. In the not too distant past, I've seen highly fragmented networks collapse under their own routing chatter. They don't even need to be fragmented to generate a lot of chatter. Simply appearing and disappearing (like a mobile network would likely have) can be very stressful. For services like VoIP or VoD, where you absolutely have to have a smooth and predictable latency and throughput, having to change routes in the middle of streaming would be suboptimal. Scaling that to hundreds or even thousands of nodes would be disasterous.

flynn23 wrote:

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

I am still not sure that what you say is true. IP multicast can work, you just need smarter NAT routers. I was addressing more of the issue of point to point connections like VoIP, which needs to handle multiple connection points, disconnects, and inappropriate IP blocks. Full stop. To say "it wouldn't scale" or that that would be less efficient, or we need static routes for... is to miss the socio-economic demands for the technology. We are starting to understand how to make things like multicast work on fixed, stable routing networks. To imply that we need these limitations to make it work is to be forced into a compromise which would hold only until someone didn't like the tradeoff regarding accessibility, useability, administration, efficiency. Over the long term, technology enables not restricts; it does not dictate what we do or how we use it.

Besides, there is always IPv6 :)

dmv wrote:
flynn23 wrote:

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

I am still not sure that what you say is true. IP multicast can work, you just need smarter NAT routers. I was addressing more of the issue of point to point connections like VoIP, which needs to handle multiple connection points, disconnects, and inappropriate IP blocks. Full stop. To say "it wouldn't scale" or that that would be less efficient, or we need static routes for... is to miss the socio-economic demands for the technology. We are starting to understand how to make things like multicast work on fixed, stable routing networks. To imply that we need these limitations to make it work is to be forced into a compromise which would hold only until someone didn't like the tradeoff regarding accessibility, useability, administration, efficiency. Over the long term, technology enables not restricts; it does not dictate what we do or how we use it.

Besides, there is always IPv6 :)

What would you nerds do if you didn't have these unimpressive inventions? Would you maybe get laid or something? You people are so boring and pathetic. Why are the faultiest minds handed the reins of new technology? You make this boring crap and then you mull over it. Get over it, losers. You have no place doing anything but serving others. You think you are important enough to discuss this stuff, but you aren't. So fuck off. Go to a bar, get laid, talk about this stuff there. Fucking morons. Talk about sports or something, like REAL men. As it stands, you are faggots. Realize it.

Vile wrote:

dmv wrote:
flynn23 wrote:

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

I am still not sure that what you say is true. IP multicast can work, you just need smarter NAT routers. I was addressing more of the issue of point to point connections like VoIP, which needs to handle multiple connection points, disconnects, and inappropriate IP blocks. Full stop. To say "it wouldn't scale" or that that would be less efficient, or we need static routes for... is to miss the socio-economic demands for the technology. We are starting to understand how to make things like multicast work on fixed, stable routing networks. To imply that we need these limitations to make it work is to be forced into a compromise which would hold only until someone didn't like the tradeoff regarding accessibility, useability, administration, efficiency. Over the long term, technology enables not restricts; it does not dictate what we do or how we use it.

Besides, there is always IPv6 :)

What would you nerds do if you didn't have these unimpressive inventions? Would you maybe get laid or something? You people are so boring and pathetic. Why are the faultiest minds handed the reins of new technology? You make this boring crap and then you mull over it. Get over it, losers. You have no place doing anything but serving others. You think you are important enough to discuss this stuff, but you aren't. So fuck off. Go to a bar, get laid, talk about this stuff there. Fucking morons. Talk about sports or something, like REAL men. As it stands, you are faggots. Realize it.

oddly enough, we were at a bar talking about this stuff. While you were at home, typing your shit, with one hand.

flynn23 wrote:

Vile wrote:

dmv wrote:
flynn23 wrote:

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

I am still not sure that what you say is true. IP multicast can work, you just need smarter NAT routers. I was addressing more of the issue of point to point connections like VoIP, which needs to handle multiple connection points, disconnects, and inappropriate IP blocks. Full stop. To say "it wouldn't scale" or that that would be less efficient, or we need static routes for... is to miss the socio-economic demands for the technology. We are starting to understand how to make things like multicast work on fixed, stable routing networks. To imply that we need these limitations to make it work is to be forced into a compromise which would hold only until someone didn't like the tradeoff regarding accessibility, useability, administration, efficiency. Over the long term, technology enables not restricts; it does not dictate what we do or how we use it.

Besides, there is always IPv6 :)

What would you nerds do if you didn't have these unimpressive inventions? Would you maybe get laid or something? You people are so boring and pathetic. Why are the faultiest minds handed the reins of new technology? You make this boring crap and then you mull over it. Get over it, losers. You have no place doing anything but serving others. You think you are important enough to discuss this stuff, but you aren't. So fuck off. Go to a bar, get laid, talk about this stuff there. Fucking morons. Talk about sports or something, like REAL men. As it stands, you are faggots. Realize it.

oddly enough, we were at a bar talking about this stuff. While you were at home, typing your shit, with one hand.

Ironically, I was at a bar when I typed that to you. My other hand was up your mom's cunt.

Vile wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Vile wrote:

dmv wrote:
flynn23 wrote:

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

I am still not sure that what you say is true. IP multicast can work, you just need smarter NAT routers. I was addressing more of the issue of point to point connections like VoIP, which needs to handle multiple connection points, disconnects, and inappropriate IP blocks. Full stop. To say "it wouldn't scale" or that that would be less efficient, or we need static routes for... is to miss the socio-economic demands for the technology. We are starting to understand how to make things like multicast work on fixed, stable routing networks. To imply that we need these limitations to make it work is to be forced into a compromise which would hold only until someone didn't like the tradeoff regarding accessibility, useability, administration, efficiency. Over the long term, technology enables not restricts; it does not dictate what we do or how we use it.

Besides, there is always IPv6 :)

What would you nerds do if you didn't have these unimpressive inventions? Would you maybe get laid or something? You people are so boring and pathetic. Why are the faultiest minds handed the reins of new technology? You make this boring crap and then you mull over it. Get over it, losers. You have no place doing anything but serving others. You think you are important enough to discuss this stuff, but you aren't. So fuck off. Go to a bar, get laid, talk about this stuff there. Fucking morons. Talk about sports or something, like REAL men. As it stands, you are faggots. Realize it.

oddly enough, we were at a bar talking about this stuff. While you were at home, typing your shit, with one hand.

Ironically, I was at a bar when I typed that to you. My other hand was up your mom's cunt.

wow. how did you manage to survive forth grade with skills like that? C'mon Vile... you used to be worthy of at least reading your responses. But you're getting lazy and boring now. Put down the pipe.

btw - mom said she faked it.

flynn23 wrote:

Vile wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Vile wrote:

dmv wrote:
flynn23 wrote:

It does if you want to use any IP tricks, such as IP multicast or RSVP. While some of these things have gone the way of the dodo, I have a sense that they might reappear. A glut of bandwidth caused them to fade into the background as a means of giving us quality service. But in a few years (a few short years, maybe 5), when every tivo and cell phone and xbox and refridgerator and car needs access to the network, particularly for things like streaming media, then you'll probably see a resurgence in using some of these techniques to lighten the load on the network.

I am still not sure that what you say is true. IP multicast can work, you just need smarter NAT routers. I was addressing more of the issue of point to point connections like VoIP, which needs to handle multiple connection points, disconnects, and inappropriate IP blocks. Full stop. To say "it wouldn't scale" or that that would be less efficient, or we need static routes for... is to miss the socio-economic demands for the technology. We are starting to understand how to make things like multicast work on fixed, stable routing networks. To imply that we need these limitations to make it work is to be forced into a compromise which would hold only until someone didn't like the tradeoff regarding accessibility, useability, administration, efficiency. Over the long term, technology enables not restricts; it does not dictate what we do or how we use it.

Besides, there is always IPv6 :)

What would you nerds do if you didn't have these unimpressive inventions? Would you maybe get laid or something? You people are so boring and pathetic. Why are the faultiest minds handed the reins of new technology? You make this boring crap and then you mull over it. Get over it, losers. You have no place doing anything but serving others. You think you are important enough to discuss this stuff, but you aren't. So fuck off. Go to a bar, get laid, talk about this stuff there. Fucking morons. Talk about sports or something, like REAL men. As it stands, you are faggots. Realize it.

oddly enough, we were at a bar talking about this stuff. While you were at home, typing your shit, with one hand.

Ironically, I was at a bar when I typed that to you. My other hand was up your mom's cunt.

wow. how did you manage to survive forth grade with skills like that? C'mon Vile... you used to be worthy of at least reading your responses. But you're getting lazy and boring now. Put down the pipe.

btw - mom said she faked it.

She didn't fake it very well.