Re: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
Date: October 30, 2008 9:02:38 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org>
Subject: Re: [IP] the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split

Ok, Mike, I ordered the book.  It better unlock the mysteries of life  
for
me!  What I fear is that ANY reimplementation of addressing will be  
hijacked
by the 'carriers'.  Heck, it is in their interest to glean as much  
revenue
out of their investments.  Unless we the people figure out how to
re-regulate their bit pipe assets.  Oh, we think we try to do that,  
but our
lovely graft stricken political system makes it impossible to do that  
and
make it stick for even a few years.  In the coming years of financial  
crush
we may be able to find the political will to regulate the pipes.  I
sincerely hope so.  I have no problem with all the value add services  
that
anyone wants to add on top and charge whatever the market will bear, but
using the pipe ownership (which because of its "rights of way" being  
owned
by all citizens) as their monopoly club is just dead wrong for the
citizenry.  The Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to separate out all the
pipes from the services, but Congress and its creations backpedaled on  
that
as we all know.

Time to try again?

Meanwhile I will read John Daly's book on the true joys of NAT!


On 10/29/08 11:54 PM, "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: mo () ccr org (Mike O'Dell)
> Date: October 29, 2008 8:28:25 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split
>
>
> Dave,
>
> an indulgence if you would.
>
> there is a persistent urban myth (which gets repeated here
> with some frequency) which states that splitting "network
> addresses" into location-dependent and location-independent
> components is the secret to life, the universe, and everything.
>
> i know that myth quite well because once upon a time i subscribed
> to it and made a serious proposal to do just that with IPv6.
>
> But if you want to find out why the myth is wrong and what it
> takes to have it work right from first principles, you're going
> to have to read a book that will likely take some work:
>
> "Patterns in Network Architecture:
> A Return to Fundamentals"
> by John Day
>
> It contains more than a few deeply profound insights.
> Among other things, you'll discover why "global addresses" are
> an abberation, and that "NAT" is an absolutely natural technique
> to use in structure networks - it's just the introduction of an
> arbitrary abstraction encapusulation. In fact, the ugliness of
> "NAT" is directly related to how, uh, "unfortunate" the
> underlying architecture really is.
>
> this is indeed a shameless plug for John's remarkable book.
> if you really want to know what a clean, deeply elegant
> network architecture based on solid fundamentals
> can look like, read his book.
>
> cheers,
> -mo
>
> Full and Fair Disclosure:
> I reviewed the text along the way as a work in progress.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



Tel. 707-967-0203   Cell  650-776-7313
My assistant is Dori Kirk   Tel. 707-255-7094  dori () lynch com







-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com