[182254] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Overlay broad patent on IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Tue Jul 14 13:10:23 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "'Baldur Norddahl'" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7AgqwwtTz1Zj-E2qgpPyqCdYYXd3nLUcTo86OdC7A9rsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:10:08 -0700
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alh-ietf@tndh.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
There is prior art here, and likely patents held by HP
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bound-dstm-exp-04
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur
> Norddahl
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:10 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Fwd: Overlay broad patent on IPv6?
>=20
> Nah what you describe is a different invention. Someone probably =
already
> has a patent on that.
>=20
> The browser will do a DNS lookup on slashdot.org and then cache that -
> forever (or until you restart the browser). Yes it will ignore the TTL =
(apps
> don't get the TTL at all, so apps don't know). Same happens if you ssh =
to
> yourserver.someplace.com. One DNS lookup, the traffic sticks there =
forever
> or until the session is terminated. DNS is horrible for this.
>=20
> If they had a IPv4 internal private network going you would not need =
to
> hook unto the DNS at all. Just get IP address when something wants to =
be
> routed out the WAN port. Also the NAT table is a good indicator of =
when
> you can release the address again.
>=20
> On other words, that would work, but the system described in the =
patent
> app wont.
>=20
> Of course both systems are useless. I can not imagine any end user =
that
> wont have a ton of IPv4 going on for the next decade to come. And when
> time comes, we are more likely to NAT64 than this.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Baldur
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 13 July 2015 at 18:04, Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> > The point is you'd already have a 192 address or something, and it
> > would only grab the external address for a short duration for use as
> > an external PAT address, thus oversubscribing the ip4 pool to users
> > who need it (based on dns). Its still pretty broken, but less broken
> > than you describe.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:55 AM, <A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >> This is actually a good idea. Roll out an IPV6 only network and
> > >> only
> > pass
> > >> out an IPV4 address if it's needed based on actual traffic.
> > >
> > > yes...shame someones applied for a patent on that! ;-)
> > >
> > > alan
> >
