by Wesley George, Time Warner Cable
Recently, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) approved and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) allocated a new IPv4 address block (100.64.0.0/10) designated for use as “Shared Transition Space” in support of the IPv6 transition. This decision was highly controversial within the different standards and policy bodies that discussed the idea. The author would like to note that people have been debating this topic for years, and nearly everyone within the broad stakeholder community seems to have a strong opinion on the matter, including me. Despite the best of intentions, some of my opinions and biases may appear within the article. I did not intend this article to be a definitive conclusion on the matter, but rather a summary of the recent discussion. Whether the standards bodies involved came to the “right” or “wrong” conclusion—as well as the veracity of the arguments on both sides—is an exercise for you, the reader.
by Geoff Huston, APNIC
In November 1988, telephone companies from 178 nations sent their respective government representatives to the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference (WATTC) in Melbourne, Australia. At the time the generally cosy relationships between governments and their monopoly telephone companies often made it extremely difficult to see the difference between the government’s representatives and those of the telephone company. The group resolved to agree to the rather grandly titled International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).
by Russ White, Verisign
The field of network and protocol engineering has three watchwords: faster, bigger, and cheaper. Although we all know the joke about choosing two out of the three, the reality of networking is that we have been doing all three for years—and it doesn’t look like there is any time on the horizon when we will not be doing all three.
Ed.: We received several letters in response to the article “A Retrospective: Twenty-Five Years Ago,” by Geoff Huston, published in the previous issue of this journal. Here is some of the feedback:
The Internet Protocol Journal (IPJ) is published quarterly by Cisco Systems. The journal is not intended to promote any specific products or services, but rather is intended to serve as an informational and educational resource for engineering professionals involved in the design, development, and operation of public and private internets and intranets. The journal carries tutorial articles (“What is…?”), as well as implementation/operation articles (“How to…”). It provides readers with technology and standardization updates for all levels of the protocol stack and serves as a forum for discussion of all aspects of internetworking.