Re: MBONE access?

On 3 Mar 2004, at 14:38, Hadmut Danisch wrote: I'd like to watch the MARID BOF on mbone, but unfortunately my IP provider does not support multicast. Can anyone give me a hint about where to get an mbone tunneling access point? If you find an answer, telling this list would be good. In the past t

Re: Principles of Spam-abatement

On 10 Mar 2004, at 05:10, Dean Anderson wrote: Joe Abley, you should be aware that your company is using a revenge list for spam blocking. You might want to consider using a different email address. But it makes an interesting end to this discussion, I think. If you ever really need to get hold

For amusement value only

ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song35.mp3 http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html Politically-incorrect troll though I may be judged to be, they did a very nice job on the mp3. Singing! A zero... one.. A one zero one one VRRP, philosophically, must ipso facto standard be But standard it

Re: [Ietf] 240.0.0.0/4

On 23 Apr 2004, at 08:37, Daniel Senie wrote: 2) Make available several chunks of space for RFC1918 usage, perhaps a few /8's, a whole mess of /12's, and many /16's. This space does two things: First, it provides additional private address space, which is needed. It is? ___

Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists

On 10 May 2004, at 16:10, Dean Anderson wrote: As Joe Abley revealed previously, this configuration from ISC.ORG isn't meant to actually block spam. What? ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists

On 11 May 2004, at 14:26, Dean Anderson wrote: One thing I've noticed is that of none of the people criticizing me has thought to address the fact that OUR ADDRESS SPACE IS NOT HIJACKED, and that these people associated with the IETF: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, Bill Manning, and Rob Austein as

Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists

On 11 May 2004, at 14:02, Dean Anderson wrote: The following message indicates that EP.NET has assigned an IP address to ISC.ORG. You are quite well aware of this. Dissembling will not help you. For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in this, 198.32.176.0/24 is th

Re: [dnsop] Re: Complaint on abuse of DNSOP lists

May 2004, Joe Abley wrote: For the benefit of less-operational people here who don't see humour in this, 198.32.176.0/24 is the PAIX IPv4 peering fabric in the Bay Area. This block is assigned to EP.NET. [...] As you can see, traffic to 204.152.186.189 transits EP.NET's 198.32.176

Re: 13 Root Server Limitation

On 16 May 2004, at 18:22, Dean Anderson wrote: ... and that further, the root servers operators have widely adopted a dubious anycast replication model that won't work well with TCP and load-balancing BGP configurations that are gaining the interest of ISPs. Such load balancing configurations will

Re: 13 Root Server Limitation

On 16 May 2004, at 22:09, John Kristoff wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:01:17 -0400 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: reconvergence events to non-anycast servers). In addition, before the frequency of the route churn became sufficiently high to cause a problem, it would be well and truly

Re: 13 Root Server Limitation

On 17 May 2004, at 04:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: This is pretty much impossible with Cisco equipment, as in order to load balance, the different routes must all be learned from the same neighboring AS. (So if everyone used Cisco equipment the AS paths would have to be identical.) It may be

Re: IPv6 is being deployed !

On 5 Nov 2004, at 20:17, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Also remember that in IPv6 only /32 are announced, so you can't just compare it one to one. Apologies for the injection of operational content, but if anybody here is only accepting /32s on their v6 borders, their import policies are broken. T

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote: For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minim

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On 18 Nov 2004, at 21:05, Jon Allen Boone wrote: And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how? End sites get addresses from ISPs, or use 6to4, or get direct assignments from RIRs if they qualify as operators of critical

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On 19 Nov 2004, at 09:25, Jon Allen Boone wrote: On Nov 18, 2004, at 21:36, Michael Richardson wrote: Jon> And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully Jon> be deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how? a) from their ISP. IPv6 contains no provider-independan

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On 19 Nov 2004, at 15:06, Jon Allen Boone wrote: 2. Someone suggested the you simply use a different provider for IPv6 than IPv4. Presumably, in this scenario, you get your address space from this new provider, then establish a 6to4 tunnel to them. No; if you use 6to4, you construct your own 2

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

On 19 Nov 2004, at 20:16, Jon Allen Boone wrote: On Nov 19, 2004, at 16:23, Joe Abley wrote: I mean, no one's seriously suggesting an organization throw real money down on yet another circuit to yet another provider just to get IPv6 connectivity for particular reason, right? Tunnels don&#

Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)

On 7 Dec 2004, at 10:33, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 13:38 07/12/2004, Francis Dupont wrote: In your previous mail you wrote: Has anyone present on this list ever experienced a problem in getting a new chunk of IP addresses from a RIR or from an ISP? => the administrative procedures used

Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)

On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no o

Re: As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)

On 7 Dec 2004, at 15:46, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote: On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others? That the affirmation that no RIR has

Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

On 13 Dec 2004, at 18:34, Peter Constable wrote: 3. Re ISO 8601 time/date format: What is used in the registry is dates expressed in the format "-MM-DD". It was agreed that it would be better to identify the format precisely rather than make the generic reference to ISO 8601. Why not require

Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC

On 24 Feb 2005, at 10:00, Carl Malamud wrote: Merci bien pour votre suggestions ... JSPF (Je suis pas francais). :)) Tiny grammatical nits in the last paragraph of section 5: - In summary, for senders and receivers of email, use of the - "No-Solicit:" mechanism would be simply to understand and u

Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wireless

On 18 Mar 2005, at 12:33, Keith Moore wrote: I find myself thinking that these are the most important things for wireless: 1. advertise up front that wireless is an experimental, not production, service. For people with operational responsibilities, this (above) presents a problem. But, see bel

Re: Last Call: 'Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures' to BCP

On 29 March 2005, at 14:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Section ÙÙ heading in table of contents and in the actual section contains a spelling error: "Acknowledgements" should be "Acknowledgments". According to two dictionaries I checked (Random House and Ultralingua) both spelling are acceptable. But

Getting a visa for Canada (IETF 64, Vancouver, November)

On 26 Jun 2005, at 14:48, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: AND - apply for visas for the Canadian meeting in November as soon as you can, too - it is not likely that it's very much simpler than Europe. For those interested in the requirements to enter Canada in November, the following URLs ma

Re: BCPs and STDs

On 17-Aug-2005, at 10:48, Edward Lewis wrote: It's a lot easier, when all you might have is a hand held device, to be able to click though links to see even just the title of a document when someone asks "what do you think of BCP 58?" works for me :-

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

On 13-Oct-2005, at 20:35, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: How about adding that the mean outdoor temperature at the time of the year the meeting is being held should be above 0 degrees Centigrade? References to climate conditions outside the meeting venue have no place in this document, in my

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:58, Avri Doria wrote: I think there needs to be some mention of requirements such as: - MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are so stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely difficult for some participant to attend. If adopted and enforce

Re: grow: Last Call: 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan' to Proposed Standard

On 26-Nov-2005, at 11:30, Pekka Savola wrote: ==> this document describes the multihoming approaches at quite bit of length, and I'm not sure if such are appropriate for a standards track document. Perhaps an informative reference to RFC 4116 could save some space and avoid a certain amount

Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

On 28-Nov-2005, at 14:55, Christian Huitema wrote: Hence the desire to have the RFC Editor use xml2rfc, rather than nroff. I don't think publishing the xml2rfc test is such a good idea. Xml2rfc is a preparation format. The printed result is a combination of the xml2rfc input and a formatting

Re: Wireless at IETF

On 15-Jan-2006, at 17:33, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 10:10 PM +0100 1/15/06, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Suggestion: Make instructions *with screenshots* of how to turn off ad hoc mode on Windows XP available at the next IETF. Given the amount of damage due to time wasted for other partici

Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

On 17-Jan-2006, at 08:00, Frank Ellermann wrote: The IESG wrote: consider the following document: - 'Location Types Registry ' as a Proposed Standard I'm lost with the purpose of this document. It seems from a quick glance through it that draft-ietf-simple- rpid-08 gives context. T

Re: Wireless at IETF

On 18-Jan-2006, at 15:35, Dassa wrote: I don't see the 70% of access points being open actually. My own figures indicate less than 20% within the local area, information from capital cities tends to suggest a slightly higher figure but certainly not that high. It depends a lot on the nat

Re: experiments in the ietf week

On 24 Mar 2008, at 11:18 , Marc Manthey wrote: > hello ipv6 peoples, sorry for crossposting > > how can i use ipv6 from my machine ? > > using leopard 10.5.2. mail ? > > my endpoint is 2001:6f8:1051:0:20d:93ff:fe79:f1e > > thought its automatic :-P I think you just need to make sure that the se

Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >>> So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in >>> the future, it will be easy to determine whic

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

On 27 Mar 2008, at 20:38 , Mark Andrews wrote: >> OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of >> sense, but >> not, of course, in 2821bis. > > Why not in 2821bis? Is 2821bis really that time critical? I would prefer to see the "empty field" intention implicit in "MX 0

Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

On 3 Jun 2008, at 17:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't deny that some registries have started allocating PI prefixes > for large sites. ARIN is one such registry. http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 All you need to do to qualify for a direct IPv6 assignment from ARIN is to not

Re: Problems drawing up a draft for independant submission

On 4 Jun 2008, at 12:02, Chad Giffin wrote: > whereas "IETF guidelines" is a link to > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt > > I have no access to ftp sites using the FTP protocol due to the > nature of the setup of network I use. > Could any of you please provide me with a URL to acces

Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07)

On 23 Jun 2008, at 06:19, Dave Cridland wrote: A final point is that actually phrasing it as "MUST X or Y" is problematic since English lacks the possibility of parenthesis for precendence - hence a stronger binding, such as MUST X unless Y, is preferable. Preferable to me would be to av

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:57, David Conrad wrote: On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:21 PM, SM wrote: I believe an RFC that provides an IETF-defined list of names (beyond the 4 in 2606) and/or rules defining names the "Internet technical community" feels would be inappropriate as top-level domains would be

Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

On 7 Jul 2008, at 21:36, James Seng wrote: And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on that latter scale would be problematic to the root. Was that pre-Anycast or post-Anycast? There are plenty of examples of people hosting large, infrastructure- type zones using serv

Re: IETF copying conditions

On 17 Sep 2008, at 18:42, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Of course none of the SDOs that I work with want to see incompatible > versions. But this turns the issue on its head. Open source and open > standards deal with the freedom to do things, even though we might > discourage people to take us up on t

Re: IETF copying conditions

On 19 Sep 2008, at 07:52, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:35:20PM -0400, > Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 31 lines which said: > >> I think the *whole point* of a standard is to restrict how things >> are done, in ord

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria- 04.txt

On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:55, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Well said Barry! From: Barry Leiba My biggest concern is in sections "2.3. Freedom of Participation" and "2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visas", in that I'm not sure how realistic they are. Without getting overly into politics (let's pl

Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

On 5-Apr-2006, at 11:09, Michel Py wrote: Your argument does not hold water. Do a survey of customers who have the "advanced" or "pro" package (with higher speed and multiple static IP addresses) and you will find that the very vast majority of them (if not all) use NAT anyway even though

Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

On 5-Apr-2006, at 12:16, Michel Py wrote: Of anywhere where ISPs offer a package with static IP addresses. I mean a survey of regular customers, not fellow IETFers or geek buddies. How many of them actually have multiple static IPs and how many are behind NAT nevertheless. Run your survey and

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On 14-Apr-2006, at 14:01, Kevin Loch wrote: Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I'm not saying that these people expected the internet to melt down by supporting this policy, but that's exactly the problem. Within the IETF, we've been working long and hard to find a way to allow for multihomin

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On 16-Apr-2006, at 14:18, Kevin Loch wrote: Joe Abley wrote: On 14-Apr-2006, at 14:01, Kevin Loch wrote: In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement for PI. I presume you're not

Re: Last Call: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting Calendar

On 17-May-2006, at 08:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I'm not saying they are not actually being considered, but they aren't listed in the calendar (http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ events.cal.html), while others from other regions are all listed. In my opinion, either we do that calendar corre

icalendar feeds for network/tech meeting calendar

This is not especially on-topic here, but since (a) there are probably more people here who have an interest in debugging/reviewing RFC 2445 documents than anywhere else and (b) there are probably more people here for whom a maintained calendar of meetings is a wildly useful thing, I though

Re: Response to the Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17 - 2006-05-17.

good opportunity to dispense some additional perspective. [...] What the full community may not know, [but ISC, RIPE, Joe Abley, David Kessens, Brian Carpenter, and the IESG do know], is that the report claiming that stateful anycast was stable was fabricated, and that no stateful testing was perform

Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias

On 11-Jul-2006, at 11:14, Ray Pelletier wrote: Nope. It was my attempt to provide *useful*, *important* info to attendees only, and a list to send a meeting survey sometime after the meeting. I did not implement it well. More feedback for you on the implementation: the mail that was sent

Re: Response to the Appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-02-17 - 2006-05-17.

On 12-Jul-2006, at 15:45, Dean Anderson wrote: I make no claims that anycast is definitively safe for protocols and services which don't involve trivial, stateless transactions. Really? That's a big change. Really? There has been text to that effect in the draft since -00. For example, t

Re: Meetings in other regions

On 13-Jul-2006, at 07:38, Fred Baker wrote: I spoke a week ago with Franck Martin, from Fiji. If you're looking for "places", Fiji would be a wonderful. He complained that while many GBPS of fiber traveled within a few miles of his home, but due to the cost of the landing site he was limit

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

On 28-Jul-2006, at 10:28, Andy Bierman wrote: 3) I find it ironic that sometimes the only garbage posting to this list during a given week is the automated report telling me how much garbage posting occurred during the week. I think it'd be hard for me to identify a contiguous seven-d

Re: Last Call: 'Key Change Strategies for TCP-MD5' to Informational RFC (draft-bellovin-keyroll2385)

On 3-Oct-2006, at 14:17, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Well, my expience is pretty much the opposite: in the commercial ISP world here in Europe, key changes are rare. ISC has deployed (I think) almost 40 nodes of F now across six continents, and there's peering at pretty much all of those

Re: Proceeding CDs

On 6-Oct-2006, at 14:26, Gray, Eric wrote: It makes sense now, but will it make sense in 10 years? If there is concern about a permanent archive, then surely this is entirely orthogonal to the question of whether to burn things to scratch-prone, flimsy plastic discs. To give information

Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)' to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv)

On 27-Oct-2006, at 09:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:24:22PM -0400, The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 18 lines which said: - 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) ' as an Informational RFC I've read it, and find no stopping issues. I believe that

Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)' to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv)

On 30-Oct-2006, at 11:38, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: When the statement is "I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec- dlv-01 with the ISC tech note closely, but since the text is different it seems likely that implementations based on one would likely differ from those" it should go straigh

Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)' to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv)

On 30-Oct-2006, at 16:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I agree with Olaf's suggestion that there be an action on the document author to add a section explaining the relationship of the draft to existing experimental practice. It seems to me that this is entirely appropriate in a document m

Re: Risk of Laptop Seizure by Customs or Border Patrol Officers ...

On 10-Nov-2006, at 02:35, Michel Py wrote: Michel Py wrote: Besides, there are several ways to carry confidential info while flying. Here's an example: They'll look at your laptop, but will not bother looking at the 4GB SD card you have in your digital camera Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: These

Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)

On 13-Nov-2006, at 22:45, Eric Allman wrote: By putting the record in a subdomain we believe we have avoided the major issues associated with TXT records. I would not be surprised if someone proposes a new RR; if so we'll deal with that as the time comes. It just didn't seem necessary to

Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)

On 14-Nov-2006, at 17:03, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote: For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what friction do you expect? As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old arguments. This has been beaten to death on the DKIM

Re: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry

On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot of network management software cannot handle such notation and in some cases, 1.0 could be interpreted as the IP address 1.0.0.0. It has been confirmed that

Re: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry

On 29-Nov-2006, at 12:14, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote: On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot of network management software cannot handle such notation and

Re: DNS role (RE: NATs as firewalls, cryptography, and curbing DDoS threats.)

On 8-Mar-2007, at 10:17, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: A prediction: Sooner or later, IPv4 addresses become so scarce that renting a colo server with IPv4 becomes more expensive than IPv6. When that happens, a few NAT-hating spoilsports will set up the first few IPv6-only servers and a year late

Re: Non-priority baggage handling (Re: Warning - risk of duty free ...)

On 16-Mar-2007, at 14:23, John C Klensin wrote: I've also been told by a couple of airlines that, if your bag gets lost and ends up sitting in a "figure out who this belongs to and how to get it there" area, those brightly-colored tags get the first attention. My experience with Air Canada su

Re: Seeking a new IAB Executive Director

On 19-Mar-2007, at 22:31, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: The first point, keeping and editing the minutes, almost excludes the non-native English speakers, at least, they will have a much more difficult job if a non-native candidate is appointed for this. As a counterpoint to that observation

[OT] anybody need a social ticket?

I have a ticket to the social tonight which it turns out I will not be using. If anybody else wants to attend the social, but does not have a ticket, please drop me a note off-list so we can arrange something. Thanks! (and apologies for the noise, especially for those not in Prague). __

Re: [OT] anybody need a social ticket?

On 20-Mar-2007, at 13:46, Joe Abley wrote: I have a ticket to the social tonight which it turns out I will not be using. If anybody else wants to attend the social, but does not have a ticket, please drop me a note off-list so we can arrange something. Problem has been solved. No need

Re: Pingsta Invitation

On 26-Mar-2007, at 05:55, Adrian Farrel wrote: "Stephen Casner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... I don't know anything about Pingsta or its credibility. However, I am currently reading a boot... Yes, this has to be a new and innovative communication method :-) It's standard practice here i

Re: Remote participation (re: identifying yourself at the mic)

On 27-Mar-2007, at 16:46, Nicolas Williams wrote: (The IETF might have to charge remote participants a conference call fee, if it uses a third party provider, say.) I'm still unsure why people use third party providers for conference calls, if they need conference call facilities at all fre

Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

On 30-Jul-2007, at 10:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-07-30 07:05, Tony Li wrote: On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Comcast (cable-based ISP) is rumored to

Re: IPv6: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

On 30-Jul-2007, at 01:05, Tony Li wrote: On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Peter Dambier wrote: Is there any IPv6 activity inside the US? Some. NTT/America, for example, is a Tier 1 provider with v6 deployed. Also Global Crossing and Teleglobe/VSNL International. There are also European p

Re: what's up with the management

On 3-Aug-2007, at 08:25, Pekka Savola wrote: Just an observation: It's nice to note that the management appears to be busy with real work. The last IAB minutes are from April 10, IAOC from March 1. I have a stack of minutes to push up to the web page; however, I've been unusually busy w

Re: what's up with the management

On 6-Aug-2007, at 10:56, Simon Josefsson wrote: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On 3-Aug-2007, at 08:25, Pekka Savola wrote: Just an observation: It's nice to note that the management appears to be busy with real work. The last IAB minutes are from April 10, IAOC from M

Re: [DNSOP] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil (Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks) to BCP

On 28-Sep-2007, at 1136, Paul Hoffman wrote: It is not "obvious", at least to some of the people I have spoken with. It is also not obvious to VPN vendors; otherwise, they would have easy-to-use settings to make it happen. I'm surprised by that comment. I think it's a common use case that

Re: [DNSOP] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil (Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks) to BCP

On 28-Sep-2007, at 1516, Dean Anderson wrote: Not widely supported in clients. Therefore, not a solution. In fact, it's quite feasible in operating systems which can run a local instance of (say) BIND9. It would be fair to say that installing and configuring BIND9 on an average laptop is

Re: secid review of draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01

On 1-Oct-2007, at 0511, Jari Arkko wrote: Hi David, and thanks for your review. Inline: As such, the whole document is a security consideration. The vulnerability appears well-documented, and the guidelines for handling the deprecated RH0 are clear. Good. Just by-the-by, I noticed the

Re: Seeking ICANN Nomcom 2008 candidate

IETF and ICANN. The IAB has selected Ole Jacobsen as the IETF member of the 2008 ICANN Nomcom. We would like to thank all those who volunteered. For the IAB, Joe Abley (IAB execd) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman

IETF Liaison to ITU-NGN

In its regular business meeting on 17 October 2007, the IAB appointed Monique Morrow to act as IETF liaison to the ITU-NGN. Many thanks to Monique for agreeing to serve in this role. Joe Abley (for the IAB) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org

Re: Lets be careful with those XML submissions to the RFC Editor

On 27-Nov-2007, at 12:16, Marshall Rose wrote: agreed. at the risk of stating the obvious: the problem is identical to the one where the authors submit nroff source to the rfc-editor. it's always a good idea to run the toolchain, and then diff the text against the I-D approved by the IESG. if

Re: TCP

On 16-Dec-2007, at 22:17, Greg Shepherd wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 3:17 PM, Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Fred Baker wrote: On Dec 15, 2007, at 2:17 AM, Jeyasekar Antony wrote: I heard that TCP is not suitable for high speed network because of its is it true? is

Re: I-D Action:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-00.txt

On 17-Jan-2008, at 18:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Added sentences to section 8.1 explaining that BCPs and FYIs are sub- series of Informational RFCs. Namely: The sub-series of FYIs and BCPs are comprised of "Informational documents" in the sense of the enumeration above, with s

Re: I-D Action:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-00.txt

On 18-Jan-2008, at 21:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I've always wondered what the designation "for your information" adds to an RFC that is already labelled "informational". Me too. I hope to find out :-) Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org h

Re: IPv6-clean path from root to www.ietf.org?

On 5-Feb-2008, at 23:48, Ram Mohan wrote: > This will get taken care of in a short time here. Appropriate records were added to the INFO zone earlier today. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [IAOC] Dublin Hotel Contract was Re: IETF 72 --> Dublin!

On 8-Feb-2008, at 14:33, Richard Barnes wrote: > I noticed the same thing when I was making my booking. As a > precaution, > I put a note in the "Comments" block saying that I expect the terms of > the IETF contract to be followed, with a copy of the terms from > Ray's email. Heh, and I tho

Re: [IAOC] RFC Editor costs - Proofreading (was Re: My view of theIAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines)

On 11-Feb-2008, at 17:38, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > But then shouldn't the question be whether the style manual should > be changed ? From "consistent with English grammar" to something else? Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.iet

Re: [IAOC] RFC Editor costs - Proofreading (was Re: My view of the IAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines)

On 11-Feb-2008, at 13:53, Fred Baker wrote: > I have occasionally found myself wondering whether a grammar checker > that could read our XML files (about 1/3 of our posted drafts have > XML source posted with them) and make suggestions would be of value. > In converting what is now RFC 1716 to RF

Re: AMS - IETF Press Release

On 12-Feb-2008, at 14:42, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The real problem here is the loser MUAs and MTAs that reformat text to > wrap at 60 or 80 cols. It does not matter how you paste the URL, if it > is longer than 60 cols it is quite likely to get mangled en-route. Clients that implement RFC

Re: Presentation on IP address shortage

On 13-Feb-2008, at 14:05, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP > address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching. If you're looking for source material rather than slideware, I imagine there is no more up-to-date re

Re: Letter of invitation (for Visa)

On 15-Feb-2008, at 09:54, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: > I am somewhat surprised about this: > > LETTERS OF INVITATION: > > After you complete the registration process, you will be given the > option of requesting a Letter of Invitation for IETF 71 in > Philadelphia > and for IETF 73 in Mi

Re: Korean cell phones

On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 04:34 Canada/Eastern, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote: - GSM is very limited, if at all existent (I found one network listed as "planned for Sept 2003") I was in Seoul a few weeks ago and my tri-band GSM handset couldn't find any network. There may be GSM coverage somewhere,

Re: national security

On 8 Dec 2003, at 10:14, Dean Anderson wrote: Also, anycasting doesn't work for TCP. Would you care to elaborate on "doesn't work"? I agree. It is easy to create a blackhole, or even a DDOS on an anycast address. It is much harder to DDOS 600 IP addresses spread through some 200 countries. It

Re: national security

On 7 Dec 2003, at 07:21, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I don't think this is an oversight, I'm pretty sure this was intentional. However, since in practice the BGP best path selection algorithm boils down to looking at the AS path length and this has the tendency to be the same length for many pa

Re: national security

On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:25, Masataka Ohta wrote: I'm afraid F servers does not follow the intention of my original proposal of anycast root servers. This may well be the case (I haven't read your original proposal). Apologies if I gave the impression that I thought to the contrary. Finally, using o

Re: Non terminated traffic...

On 10 Dec 2003, at 17:33, Franck Martin wrote: Apart from setting up ingress(?) filtering to ensure that these packets gets dropped before they go further, Google for "Unicast Reverse Path Filtering" (uRPF). The filter you describe above can be obtained by means of turning loose-mode uRPF on a b

Re: Non terminated traffic...

On 10 Dec 2003, at 19:04, Franck Martin wrote: Yes it is problem 2) and yes I realise it is difficult to solve. This is why I suggested a new RFC... Oh, maybe I misread. I thought you were talking about packets from bogus source addresses. Numerous ASes support a blackhole community attribut

Re: Hashing spam

On 18 Dec 2003, at 13:10, escom wrote: I work on an approach to block spam with a database of hash (md5) string of spam email: 1) Reporting a "verified" spam to the database server on the web 2) the mail client check incoming mail, generate a hash string send to and verify the presence on the se

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

On 12 Jan 2004, at 15:13, Paul Robinson wrote: IPv6 will not take off any time soon because neither the end-user nor the service provider sees the need. The moment AOL, Wanadoo, Tiscali, World Online et al shout out "we *need* IPv6" it will happen. Quickly. Interestingly, whenever we deploy an F

  1   2   >