On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:11:19 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> Without solutions to these four problems on the horizon, I can't
>> voice any enthusiasm that the larger address space in IPv6 will
>> eliminate NAT in home or enterprise netwo
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:49:17PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > The IAB is ready to ask the RFC-Editor to publish
> >
> > What's in a Name: False Assumptions about DNS Names
> > draft-iab-dns-assumptions-02
> >
> > as an Informational RFC. [...]
> i think this doc
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> I just came across a 1993 mailing list for the ietf. Anyone care,
> before I delete it?
Is ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf considered to be the
definitive archive for the IETF discussion list? According to the
names of th
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:35:24AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> Since I have already received 6 requests for the 1993 IETF mailing
> list, I put it up on the ancient history page of the RFC Editor web
> site.
Oops ... didn't realize it was the distribution list, not the archive.
Since some of tho
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 01:44:09PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > ...at the cost of dropping legitimate traffic. the thing is, the set of
> > valid senders for you and the set of valid senders for everyone at cisco
> > is very different, and the latter set is much fuzzier.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 12:20:01PM +0100, Michael Dillon wrote:
> In two or three years, IPv4 network growth will be severely limited. Any
> business whose revenue growth is linked to IP network growth, must use
> IPv6 for this beyond two to three years from now. IN order to
> successfully use IPv6
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 07:43:38PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, David Conrad wrote:
> >
> > How do you renumber the IP address stored in the struct sockaddr_in in a
> > long running critical application?
>
> Applications that don't respect DNS TTLs are broken for many reasons, n
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:48:45AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> [sorry, lost attribution here]
> > TCP protects you from lots of stuff, but it doesn't really let you
> > recover from the remote endpoint rebooting, for example...
> well, duh. if the endpoint fails then all of the application-level
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:08:38PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> > yes, but do you think that was because that ietf was powerless to
> > stop [NAT], or because that ietf was willing to let consenting
> > adults try out new ideas? i was there, and from what i saw, it was
> > the f
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:29:34PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:50:44AM +,
> > Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > a message of 32 lines which said:
> >
> >> in the IETF, the naysayers pretty much kick the consenting adults'
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Hi.
>
> A little more background/context that got me here.
>
> My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs
> have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6
> deployment. I think the I
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a question of ambition. At sixteen I was interested in mastering
> the computer at its most fundamental level. I wrote arcade games in
> 6502 and Z80 assembler.
> Today the idea of booting linux on a laptop would not make my top ten,
> hund
work out a deployment strategy that is likely to be acceptable to them.
>
> No question it is a lot more fun doin enginering without deadlines or user
> requirements. But that is not the real world we have to work in.
>
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good
Keith Moore wrote:
> it's not at all clear whether NAT provided additional time for
> IPng development or whether such time was really needed. IPv6 was
> largely developed before NAT enjoyed significant deployment, and
> arguably NAT has delayed adoption of IPv6. and because of the NAT
> deploy
Keith Moore wrote:
> perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
> something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
> assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
> about the likely consequences of using them. and if you are in the
>
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there's something odd to my ear about people needing to
> *be presented* with better alternatives than doing harm to the
> architecture as opposed to those people *developing* better alternatives.
With my scientist/engineer hat on, I like to develop archi
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but sooner or later folks are going to be held liable for poor engineering
> or poor implementation of networking software, just like folks today can be
> held liable for poor engineering or implementation of bridges or buildings.
I don't see how, as long
Mathis Jim-AJM005 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to move forward with IPv6 both by deploying it in
> the "core" and setting a time-frame after which non-IPv4
> compatible addresses will be assigned. Unless there is a
> clear reason to move, no one wants to change software just
> to change.
"David R. Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, nostalgia. It's so nice to revisit old "discussions"...
There was a similar discussion here about five years ago where some people
proposed market models for address allocation and routing. Unfortunately,
it's not in the archives. If anyone h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Doran) wrote:
> If steps are taken to avoid the development of a massive black
> aftermarket for IPv4 addresses overallocated by IANA et al., by providing
> the mechanisms of a "white market" -- notably a public registry of
> IP address title, with an exclusive but transfe
"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> There was a similar discussion here about five years ago where some
>> people proposed market models for address allocation and routing.
>>
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how many people are still using plain-text, non-HTML enabled
> mail readers? It still happens on some mailing list, where someone will
> send a base-64 encoded html'ified message (usually using MS Outlook),
> and someone will send back "tr
Jacob Palme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But would not better logg production in routers be an aid
> in finding the villain behind computer crimes?
What type of logging do you propose? It seems that the types of logging
that are already done enable people to trace the origins of suspicious
traf
Jon:
> personal comment
> Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
> internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
> and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
> organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged
Masataka:
> If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
> motivate AOL to be an ISP.
Keith:
> probably not. folks who subscribe to AOL aren't likely to be
> reading IETF documents.
> face it, it's not the superior quality of AOL's service that keeps
> AOLers from mo
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
> motivate AOL to be an ISP.
Why? Certainly, they are aware that they are not an ISP by your
definition. It hasn't changed their business practices. Why would
an IETF RFC change their business practices
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the reason I say that your statement is content-free is that it offers
> no specific criticism of IETF that can be used in a constructive fashion.
With respect to this particular thread, the only criticism I'd make is
I don't see how the draft in question
Lloyd Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that
>> support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use
>> the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners
>> are not the
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a routeable prefix was given to every human, using a predicted
> world population of 11 billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the
> total IPv6 address space.
> (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48
> bits in an IPv6 routi
> the commission is not responsible for the assignment of IP address space
> is it???
No, but if they convince the address registries that it is necessary,
and they implement it, I think we might still need NAT.
FYI, the last report I heard featured an interview with Don Telage of
NSI. Apparent
> At 02:53 PM 8/11/00 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
> >the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
> >IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
> &
> this stems from the lack of engineers intrest in politics, until its
> too late.
Not necessarily a lack of interest, but that most engineers are not in
much of a position to influence a political decision.
A recent article in Slashdot covers this in some respects. Although the
article tends t
Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this scenario, and with all due respect to everyone's opinions,
> policies that might have been justifiable some 10 or 15 years ago,
> such as laissez-faire interoperation, conformance verification and
> trust, cannot be justified by saying "the existing s
Peter Deutsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The implications for this seem clear enough. It seems to imply that the
> amount of traffic per protocol the activity goes on to generate is a
> reasonable milestone for any IETF activity. This doesn't mean the POISED
> list (or heck, even the IETF gener
Bob Braden wrote:
> Mark Adam wrote:
>> Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but this is different that just
>> saying "Me too" to the "We ain't makin' widgets" responses. Optimally we
>> should judge the work of a WG based on how well its output is accepted by
>> the world at large, but that'
grant mcdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi, a friend of mine is laboring under the delusion
> that the internet (the backbone services such a UUnet)
> are suffering from a "too much supply, not enough
> demand" problem right now, and that this is what is
> hurting Telecom stocks.
> i can't s
36 matches
Mail list logo
