On 8/2/13 8:50 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> >>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> >>
> >>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> >>> ISP business model.
> >>
> >> So
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>>
>>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
>>> ISP business model.
>>
>> So this is
On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
>> ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill
> NAT, and I have other people telling
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
> > The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> > ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to
> kill
> NAT, and I have ot
In message <20130801191438.c027718c...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Noel Chiappa write
s:
> > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>
> > The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> > ISP business model.
>
> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs want
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
> ISP business model.
So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill
NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of ISPs'
master pla
> From: Simon Leinen
> In the eyes of your ISP, you were misbehaving, because you were
> violating their assumption that you would use ONE (1) computer with that
> connection. If you had been what they consider an honest citizen, you
> would have gotten a "commercial" connect
On 8/1/2013 2:16 AM, Simon Leinen wrote:
>For the first couple of years that I had an ISP connection (which soon
>had an early NAT box on it), whenever I called up the ISP (then, and
>still, one of the largest in the US) with a service call, the first
>thing I had to do was unplug the NAT box a
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Simon Leinen wrote:
> Noel Chiappa writes:
> > But in any event, it's doesn't void my point: if people want
> > something, we have two choices: i) blow people off, and they'll adopt
> > some point solution that interacts poorly with everything else, or ii)
> > give
Noel Chiappa writes:
>> From: Joe Touch
>> "what people want" (ISP operators, or at least some of them), was an
>> artificial way to differentiate home customers from commercial
>> providers.
>> I.e., they wanted to create a differentiation that wasn't part of the
>> Internet architecture, so they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Hannes,
On 30.07.2013 14:35, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> I raised the need for this transparency in this writeup:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-hourglass-00
>
> The document also points to some projects / paper I am aware of
> that
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> > On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
> >> users don't realize how much lack of transpar
> From: Joe Touch
> "what people want" (ISP operators, or at least some of them), was an
> artificial way to differentiate home customers from commercial
> providers.
> I.e., they wanted to create a differentiation that wasn't part of the
> Internet architecture, so they p
On 7/30/2013 6:23 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
The IETF doesn't have a police force, or any enforcement mechanism. If we're
going to head off these boxes, the only tool we have to do that is to build
better mousetraps - i.e. design stuff that does what people want, is more
cost-effective, and is bet
On 7/30/2013 5:17 AM, Roland Bless wrote:
Hi,
my impression from several presentations seen this week at the IETF
as well as at the ISOC Panel on "Improving Internet Experience"
is that we probably need to do something on reducing the number
of _broken_ middleboxes (or their implementations re
Hi Noel,
On 30.07.2013 15:23, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I hear you, but... this is not a simple problem.
Yes, and I wasn't expecting it to be simple...
> I think we need to start by understanding what drives the creation and
> deployment of these devices. I think the answer to that has to be that so
On 7/30/13 12:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Users want applications to just work, but they (and many business
> managers in our "industry") don't understand that when applications
> fail unpredictably, it's often because of glitches in what we call
> transparency.
I suspect applications are no
On 31/07/2013 05:21, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
>> users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
>> So "transparent Internet access" isn't a commodity.Transparency
>> wo
On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
> users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
> So "transparent Internet access" isn't a commodity.Transparency
> would be cheaper if there were more demand for it,
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> {{citation-needed}} - I've only ever seen specification conformance in
> procurement documents for military systems, never for anything else.
It's quite common to see a list of supported RFCs in the spec sheet for a piece
of network hardware.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > The IETF doesn't have a police force, or any enforcement mechanism.
>
> That's true, but people do sometimes cite IETF specifications as
> requirements for equipment procurement. And in m
>>
>> Personally I would characterise this as a demand-side problem, not
>> supply-side: most users plainly aren't willing to pay for Internet
>> transparency.
>
>I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most users
>don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
>>
>> Though of course an underlying problem is that no vendor wants to sell
>> hardware that will obsolete itself, unless of course it obsoletes itself
>> by requiring the customer to purchase even more expensive hardware than
>> it replaces.
>
>Though of course an underlying problem is that no vendor wants to sell
>hardware that will obsolete itself, unless of course it obsoletes itself
>by requiring the customer to purchase even more expensive hardware than
>it replaces.It's hard to see how IETF could fight against vendors who
>we
On Jul 30, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Roland Bless
>
>> we probably need to do something on reducing the number of _broken_
>> middleboxes (or their implementations respectively) - I'm not focusing
>> on NAT boxes here.
>> ...
>> I think it's clear that we will not get rid o
> From: Roland Bless
> we probably need to do something on reducing the number of _broken_
> middleboxes (or their implementations respectively) - I'm not focusing
> on NAT boxes here.
> ...
> I think it's clear that we will not get rid of them, but if I hear
> about b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I raised the need for this transparency in this writeup:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-hourglass-00
The document also points to some projects / paper I am aware of that are
relevant. There may be more.
Ciao
Hannes
On Jul 30, 2013,
Hi,
my impression from several presentations seen this week at the IETF
as well as at the ISOC Panel on "Improving Internet Experience"
is that we probably need to do something on reducing the number
of _broken_ middleboxes (or their implementations respectively)
- I'm not focusing on NAT boxes he
28 matches
Mail list logo
