Re: [9fans] several things
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote: > i'm surprised at any actual name longer than 512 (or even 256), not so much > for plan 9, but > because linux systems still seem to have that tiny TTY limit on the size of > an input line, err - I seem to recall reading some linux pty/tty source that implied a larger limit in canonical mode - 4k/8k? But that assumes the shells in question _use_ cannonical mode.
Re: [9fans] sed crash
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:13:46PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > it would be much preferable to put the pgp > stuff in its own mime part, as many mail readers > do. X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail d55 (v55, Leopard) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) and his mailer (plugin) can do so - if it is configured correctly.
Re: [9fans] Distributed Pipelines
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 06:17:38PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > you'd > need to resort to stuffing or some other how-to- > hide-yer-oob data trick or alternately a tcp > half-close. Urgent pointer? but the half close sounds 'better'.
Re: [9fans] A simple experiment
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:32:23PM -0700, Christopher Nielsen wrote: > It doesn't play well with firewalls, NAT, or deep inspection because > none of the vendors have added support for it. I tried to get Cisco to > add IL support back in 2001, but they politely refused. Add support to what? Also what level of 'support'? IOS should already support IL in access lists simply by virtue of the fact that one can specify a numeric IP protocol. I agree that NAT and stateful firewalls (e.g. 'ip inspect' in IOS) would need explicit support to understand the packet layout. But one can always add exceptions to the firewall rules to allow IL through uninspected. Thats what I do on my IOS routers for oddball protocols. NAT - it should simply die, until then run IL over IPv6 and avoid NAT?
