Recent Articles
The End of End to End?
May 2008
The model of a clear and simple Internet where end hosts can simply send packets across a transparent network is largely an historical notion. These days we sit behind a dazzling array of so-called "middleware", including Network Address Translators, Firewalls, Web caches, DNS interceptors, TCP performance shapers, and load balancers, to name but a few. So the question is: Have we gone past the end-to-end argument? Are we heading back to a world of bewilderingly complex and expensive networks? more ...
IPv6 Deployment: Just where are we?
April 2008
In this article we'd like to look at some measures of the use of IPv4 and IPv6 protocols in today's Internet and see if we can draw any conclusions about just how far down the track we are with the IPv6 part of dual stack deployment. We'll use a number of measurements that have been made consistently since 1 January 2004 to the present, where we can distinguish between the relative levels of IPv4 and IPv6 use in various ways. more ...
Tubular Routing
March 2008
I suppose it had to happen one of these days. Sooner or later a routing hijack would get its 15 seconds of fame in the industry press, and the incident relating to the YouTube prefix just happened to be the one that was selected by the media because of the players involved rather than the rather mundane characteristics of the routing leak itself. more ...
IPv6 Transition Tools and Tui
February 2008
If IPv6 really is an inevitable component of our networked future, then is there something an ISP could do today, within the scope of a day or two of effort, that is less ambitious than the full dual stack deployment across the entire network, yet enables some degree of useful and working IPv6 support for its customers? Or, to put it another way, is there a small step that would at least kick start an ISP into the area of IPv6 support? more ...
DNSSEC - Once More, with Feeling!
January 2008
So where are we on this DNSSEC deployment agenda? Within reach? Or a bit of a stretch goal, but still plausible? Or maybe its so far out there that a manned mission to Pluto will happen first! more ...
On the Hunt for Critical Internet Resources
December 2007
I’m writing this column in November, and that means that its time for the travelling circus known as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to come down to earth, unpack its tents and sell tickets for its annual song and dance routine. The script for this year’s show has been changed, and after being excluded from the main arena last year at the Athens gig, the headline act of “Critical Internet Resources” is taking a starring role this year in Rio. Some folk are even saying that it’s the single most contentious issue to be scheduled at this year’s IGF show. more ...
NANOGGING
November 2007
There are many network operator group meetings being held these days. Even in the backwater of the South Pacific where I live there is now AUSNOG, and NZNOG is just next door in New Zealand. We now have MENOG in the Middle East and AFNOG in Africa. The original NOG was the North American Network Operators Group, NANOG, and they have the T-Shirts to prove it! NANOG meets three times a year, and I attended NANOG 41 in October 2007. NANOG meetings cover a broad variety of topics, from operational tools, measurement, and peering practices through to a commentary on the state of the Internet industry. Here’s my impressions of the meeting. more ...
IPv6 Local Addresses
October 2007
It seems to me that the entire picture behind IPv6 Centrally assigned Unique Local Addresses is one of confusion, mixed motives, unclear expectations and no clear and coherent concept of the problem that these local use addresses are intended to solve. This tends towards the conclusion that this is a classic case of application of the First Law of Holes (in case you haven't heard of this law, its pretty simple: if you are in one, stop digging!) Why are ULA-C's needed? What’s the true problem here? more ...
Trust
September 2007
All networks have an inherent trust model. When two parties cannot directly interact with each other to confirm their respective identities, roles and authorities, then they are forced to place some element of trust in the intervening network and in other systems and users. In the Internet's trust model every user trusts, to some extent, the benign intent of every other Internet user. In a closed homogenous small community this trust may be well-placed. In the broader context of a public utility system with hundreds of millions of users, this is stretching the friendship model a little bit beyond its natural limits. more ...
