RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology

[Chad Giffin <typosity at hotmail.com>]

> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:22:11 -0400
> To: typosity at hotmail.com
> From: kent at bbn.com
> Subject: Re: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> CC: kent at bbn.com
>
> Chad,
>
> I doubt that you will receive much useful feedback from IETF members.

Why would you say this?  This is a proposal for an Internet protocol.

> Your proposal suggested changes to IPv6. [...]

I am not suggesting any changes to IPv6.

> [...] That is essentially a
> non-starter, and thus your proposal probably will be ignored by the
> vast majority of IETF members. [...]

I may be speaking out of turn here... I do not believe for a second that my proposal is being ignored.  What I feel is that people are awaiting a startup of discussion on the matter.

Anonymity on the Internet is a HUGE issue.  People want this.  The IETF mailing list seems, to me, the place to discuss this.  What kind of show of support are you looking for?

> [...] The IETF has worked for many years to
> refine the IPv6 design, and to deal with the many ways that IPv6
> impacts other parts of the Internet. ANY suggestion to make a
> substantive charge to IPv6 will not be well received at this stage.
> The RNET proposal calls for MANY such changes, both in end systems
> that want to participate and in routers. [...]

The RNET proposal is VERY simple and elegant.  It does not call for MANY changes at all.  It does NOT change IPv6.  It simply adds a new style of route table handling, ie: it allows a remote host to add a route table entry for itself.

How is this /changing/ IPv6?

> [...] Also, as noted by others,
> there are elements of RNET that look like existing NAT traversal
> technologies already defined in RFCs.

I agree it is similar to NAT traversal technologies, howevFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Sat Jun 21 11:07:59 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7A33A6946;
	Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0033A6887
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 esYZQce+WURD for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com
	[65.55.116.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CE63A6868
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU120-W25 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s7.blu0.hotmail.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 
	Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:07:56 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU120-W25A3AE11ED3FB3DEA0AB30CAA40 at phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [198.163.53.10]
From: Chad Giffin <typosity at hotmail.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent at bbn.com>
Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:07:56 -0400
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2008 18:07:56.0369 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[BB433410:01C8D3C9]
Cc: IETF <ietf at ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org




> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:22:11 -0400
> To: typosity at hotmail.com
> From: kent at bbn.com
> Subject: Re: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> CC: kent at bbn.com
>
> Chad,
>
> I doubt that you will receive much useful feedback from IETF members.

Why would you say this?  This is a proposal for an Internet protocol.

> Your proposal suggested changes to IPv6. [...]

I am not suggesting any changes to IPv6.

> [...] That is essentially a
> non-starter, and thus your proposal probably will be ignored by the
> vast majority of IETF members. [...]

I may be speaking out of turn here... I do not believe for a second that my proposal is being ignored.  What I feel is that people are awaiting a startup of discussion on the matter.

Anonymity on the Internet is a HUGE issue.  People want this.  The IETF mailing list seems, to me, the place to discuss this.  What kind of show of support are you looking for?

> [...] The IETF has worked for many years to
> refine the IPv6 design, and to deal with the many ways that IPv6
> impacts other parts of the Internet. ANY suggestion to make a
> substantive charge to IPv6 will not be well received at this stage.
> The RNET proposal calls for MANY such changes, both in end systems
> that want to participate and in routers. [...]

The RNET proposal is VERY simple and elegant.  It does not call for MANY changes at all.  It does NOT change IPv6.  It simply adds a new style of route table handling, ie: it allows a remote host to add a route table entry for itself.

How is this /changing/ IPv6?

> [...] Also, as noted by others,
> there are elements of RNET that look like existing NAT traversal
> technologies already defined in RFCs.

I agree it is similar to NAT traversal technologies, however, it ier, it is more than that as well.

I submit to you this: the military is upset at this proposed protocol.  There is pressure to prevent it from becomming.  Why don't we impliment the protocol and allow police forces and the military access to the RNET membership list.

> Steve

Yours Truly,

Chad Christopher Giffin
a.k.a. "typo"

_________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


s more than that as well.

I submit to you this: the military is upset at this proposed protocol.  There is pressure to prevent it from becomming.  Why don't we impliment the protocol and allow police forces and the military access to the RNET membership list.

> Steve

Yours Truly,

Chad Christopher Giffin
a.k.a. "typo"

_________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf