Hi,
Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any stance against this slippery slope?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/20/new.domains.ap/
Comment period closes April 30th.
Tim
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/list
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:21:20AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> This is -exactly- the tpc.int. model,
> the e164.int. model,
> the e164.arpa. model...
>
> in a phrase
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:47:17AM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:
> >
> > I don't quite see what the difference here is to .edu for example. Isn't
> > this indeed very similar to how the .edu provides a "clearly
> > recognisable" label for educational services and content?
>
> .edu was an administrat
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:39:13PM +0200, Leif Johansson wrote:
>
> Big hotels that are cheap and where the staff won't throw a fit
> when we all turn up in force, laptops, duct-tape and all, don't
> exactly grow on trees you know! I'm happy if it has a bar.
:)
All we need is 802.11beer, beer ov
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
>
> This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required
> before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for
> the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.
The issue is someone knowi
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:33:14AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> However, before we say "that is a wonderful idea" (or not),
> let's remember the substance of several of the "IETF
> administration" notes and documents that have been circulated in
> the last several months. If I understand t
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:24:14AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
>
> If your threat model postulates someone knowing enough about you to check
> for your IETF registration, then simply knowing when IETF meetings occur gives
> them a pretty good start. Testing your email account for 'out of offi
I guess many people will use these tools already, but I thought I'd
just post that the excellent xml2rfc tool now supports the RFC3667
requirements as per ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
See http://xml.resource.org/, v1.24.
You just need to select the full3667 ipr option, e.g.
https:/
Oh, you can filter out any sender easily enough. The snag is you see all
the replies people send to their mailings :(
Tim
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 02:58:47PM -0500, David Frascone wrote:
> I wonder how hard it would be to set my mail server to drop your mail
> too? Since, obviously, "Email acco
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:56:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Procmail filtering on 'From:|To:|cc:' is easy enough. There's probably
> a way to get Procmail to snarf up the Message-Id: header for the sender's
> posting, and then look for that msgid in any References: or In-Reply-To:
> he
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:07:25PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> At 09:51 PM 07/21/04 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >New survey question: How many lunches and dinners did you have at the last
> >IETF that were NOT meetings?
>
> For me, it is rare to have meals that are not meetings of
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:55:51AM -0700, Aaron Falk wrote:
>
> BTW, regarding the survey: there's only been 80 responses so far. My
> take is that people don't care about the issue enough to voice their
> opinion.
Or maybe that 5% of a typical attendance is a good sample of the more
active pe
Sure, e.g.
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2004-08-02.html
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:32:30AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are folks using it?
>
> a.
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailma
try jabber.org, it's open to anyone to register.
then use ietf.xmpp.org as server, wg id as room, eg. v6ops or dhc.
tim
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:59:47AM -0700, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:37:55PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> > Sure, e.g.
> >
> >
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 11:29:09PM -0400, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
> Folks,
>
> While I realize there are only hours left, I have decided to
> forward these directions anyway.
>
> PEAP is working now, with a username/password of ietf60/ietf60.
>
> So, a configuration how-to :
>
> From the Start
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:00:09AM -0400, Tony Hansen wrote:
> I know, this isn't the most important issue in the world. But, I want to
> say that I miss the IETF meeting T-shirts. As confirmed by Harald at
> tonight's plenary, the T-shirts are normally paid for by the sponsor.
> And since we do
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 01:44:04PM +0300, John Loughney wrote:
>
>It seems to be working now. Nice to book on-line, for those who are
>time zone challenged.
I think the phone lines are there 24x7. The person I spoke to was very
lively for what would have been at best 4am on the east
So,
Are there any real Friday sessions at IETF 61, or not?
Someone tried to put v6ops on Friday am at IETF 60, before shifting
it out... it would be nice to either have IETF run out to 2-3pm and
have some real sessions, or simply make Friday officially BoFs only...
Tim
_
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:07:06PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> Sometimes this has led to Friday being no sessions, or Friday having just
> "odd" sessions (like second slots). Last time, it was pretty full.
Pretty full? There were two WG meetings and two BoFs... although
(for the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 04:33:33PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> We know that booking early saves money, and we know that locations fill
> up early. (Me, I like Minneapolis just fine. I do wish to have fewer
> meetings in the US)
Minneapolis is indeed fine, once you discover the tunnels...
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:38:43AM -0500, Ben Crosby wrote:
>
> We explored Vancouver and Montreal as other alternatives. Neither had availability
> at a venue large enough for the meeting.
... which is the crux... availability far enough in advance.
If you plan out further, I suspect availabi
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 07:03:41AM +0300, John Loughney wrote:
>
>I've skimmed the recent documents and have come away feeling rather
>uninterested in the topic. As with most others, I asume, I'm more
>interested
>in technical work not aministrative or reorg work.
I suspect t
Hi,
Could someone in the know confirm whether xml2rfc (current version 1.25)
supports the required boilerplate? I thought it did, but there have been
some comments I read to the contrary.
As this is an excellent tool for draft writing, I'd like to know :)
Thanks!
--
Tim
North American IPv6 T
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 07:30:59PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Will all the respect, this is ridiculous.
> > You are out of the market, I feel.
>
> To the contrary, I am using data from live IPv6 BGP routing tables, available
> h
... at least in Washington on the IETF61 WLAN :(
So Noel is right...
tim
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hmmm, looks like bits of the IETF61 WLAN don't have it though...
tjc$ ifconfig en1
en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::20a:95ff:fef4:c482 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
inet 130.129.134.203 netmask 0xf800 broadcast 130.129.135.255
ether 00:0a:95:f4:c4:82
media: aut
Well, I'm now seeing someone's 6to4 offering, which is (unsurprisingly)
taking me nowhere...
I guess I just need to use our tunnel broker, but native would be nicer.
Tim
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 09:11:44AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I saw this:
>
> Ordenador-de-Jordi-Palet:~ jordi$ tra
Hi,
Could you describe why exactly IPv6 can't run on the (layer 2?) WLAN
infrastructure? I'm sure this would be a help for many people to
know which products do not support IPv6...
It sounds like the WLAN access points you have chosen can't handle
multicast in some form? Which make/model are
And I don't remember asking about MIP :)
Tim
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:14:51PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Tim Chown wrote:
>
> IPv6 is defective in so many ways. But, w.r.t. WLAN, here is the
> reason.
>
> >Could you describe why exactly IPv6 can't run on t
Ironic given the recent press announcements by Airespace, which seemed
to have jumped the gun a little ;)
First fully IPv6-compatible WLAN kit available
- October 27, 2004, 11:40 BST
- Airespace has become the first WLAN OEM to announce support for the IPv6
protocol in its products
- http://news.
I am in International E, without v6 on WLAN, but can v4 ssh home and
trace from there to the v6 router here. Then I see VERY good response
over the JANET-GEANT-Abilene-IETF route.
Maybe it's a Euro6IX issue for you, for specific routing to that prefix
as opposed to the production prefix, if GE
Hmm, maybe we could put an IPv4 and IPv6 proponent in the ring?
But who would pay to see it?
Tim
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 04:13:23PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> see http://www.fightforchildren.org/events_2_1.asp
> At 03:57 PM 11/11/2004, William Gilliam wrote:
>
> >OK, I'll ask.
> >
> >Who convin
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:59:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Now, having done that, I can either jump through lots of hassles configuring
> a 6to4 proxy, or I can just type www.cnn.com in the browser window.
>
> It isn't just whether *I* can/have done it, it's *also* about whether the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> To sum up, NAT gives me two features:
>
> 1. Multiple machines on the single-address allocation the ISP gives me.
> 2. Decoupling of mt local network addresses from the ISP assignment.
>
> I hear a lot of muttering about NATs b
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:20:17AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> But this has also happened lately; not everybody is so short-sighted:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118610,00.asp
Since you cite Nokia, it's interesting that on the Communicator 9500 you
can run a regular voice c
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Depends on the type of home user ;)
> Nevertheless, most homes currently only consist of maybe 3 ethernet
> segments (wired, wireless, office or something) and maybe a max of 20
> hosts. Changing the IP's of those hosts should not be
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:44:07AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 11/22/04 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
> >Yes Fred I would _expect_ my ISP to sell me a /64 but at what price? It
> >continues to amaze me that no one discussing the IP V6 adoption issues
> >will focus attention on the obv
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:44:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +0000, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on the type of home user ;)
> > > Nevertheless, most homes
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:45:51AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] has already been denied posting rights on at least
> one IETF WG mailing list because of this behaviour.
>
> Is it time to dig out RFC 3683/BCP 83?
>
> BTW - has anyone, anywhere ever seen a response fro
Hi,
Our anti-virus system tags all IETF draft announcements as being potentially
dangerous. I suspect because of the unusual options to fetch the data that
are encoded in the MIME header.
We would certainly like to see that feature removed from IETF announcements,
as it seems archaic. This ma
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:54:10AM -0600, Christopher A Bongaarts wrote:
> In the immortal words of lafur Gumundsson:
>
> > The good news:
> > Last December Minneapolis started a Light Rail Service between
> > downtown and Mall of America with a stop at the airport.
> > The ride costs $1.25 each w
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:07:09PM -0800, Stephen Casner wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> > IETF 62 inagurates a new streaming effort. Instead of covering only two
> > rooms it is our intention to cover all eight. Instead of multicast video
> > delivery, unicast audio-only. It
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:39:43PM +, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> http://www.surgeradio.co.uk/listen/advanced.html
>
> http://www.ipv6.ecs.soton.ac.uk/virginradio/vruk-hi-mp3.m3u (MP3)
Just to confirm these are IPv6 unicast, but we support multicast for
both al
Much gnashing of teeth in Salon D this morning.
DHCP failing for v4, IPv6 connectivity coming and goping
Seems everyone in the room is affected.
(So we didn't get a jabber scribe for mboned ;)
--
Tim
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www
It seems the cutoff is more often a driver to get updates written, and 00
drafts kicked off. One alternative is to review other means to encourage
timely and regular draft updates? This might help distribute the load
through the year rather than into three hectic chokepoints.
Tim
On Mon, Mar 07
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:04:52AM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have already seen
> several major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
> with IPv6, even though they can get enough public address space.
Do you have
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Jordi, I thought that Jim Martin's message under subject
> "IETF62 Wireless Network Update" had already explained
> what was happening (and IPv6 was a victim of those
> circumstances). Of course this was very annoying and nobody
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:35:21AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
>
> The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
> though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
> these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are the one that convinced
> me some years a
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:18:00AM -0800, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>
> Not exactly, Telekom Austria spent more than a year ramping up for the
> meeting AND they had installed and controled all of the in building
> network for the Austria Center Vienna. They did a great job, but they
> had way more acc
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:37:45AM -0800, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>
> Ask Jim/Karen/etc when they got access to any given room here in the
> Hilton...
It is a thankless task, I emphasise :) But the rooms are preumably the
same with each Minneapolis running.
> This has been done several times - af
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:47:05PM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Simply saying that a network which is built by volunteers (or by anyone
> else for that matter) MUST be reliable is just naive. It's a bit like
> saying operating systems and other software must be bug free. Keep in
> mind that the
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 05:02:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> It is precisely the style of thinking, and not the specifics,
> that I was trying to suggest and illustrate.
Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alc
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 09:08:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
> >rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.
>
> I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who
> violate list p
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 06:14:16AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carsten Bormann writ
> es:
> >Now that the two previous main concerns about the Paris IETF are
> >under control (nobody has died from the heat yet and the pocket loss
> >rate is at the expected
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 12:38:28PM +0200, Joerg Ott wrote:
>
> What do other people think?
Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:14:01PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> >(As announced to the ISOC membership)
> >
> >Announcing the IETF Journal - a new ISOC publication
> >
> >ISOC is pleased to announce the "IETF Journal", a new Internet Society
> >publicatio
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:39:18PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Excuse me Stéphane, but I do not find these comments constructive.
> Anyone planning an international meeting for 1000+ people has
> to take a great many things seriously that you seem to think
> are amusing. We had some serious s
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:52:23AM -0500, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG to
> consider the following document:
>
> - 'Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and
>Aggregation Plan '
> as a Proposed St
Hi,
Has there been any discussion in the upper echelons of the IETF about the
issue of Friday sessions?
If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with around 3-5
meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or more are BoFs.
Is this likely to continue, such that if you're fro
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Registration for Dallas is in the final test stage, with a new system for
> credit card processing, and we want it to be rock solid.
> Should be open *really* soon now.
And the hotel info?
(And is the meeting ending 11.30am o
Having a single system for all WG lists has the appeal that whatever
process(es) handle the lists, it will be the same for all lists, so
you don't have to figure out how N different lists are run.
As a shameless plug, we have a free open source solution developed here
which is widely used against
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 07:04:27PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > okay. I found myself wondering if the change in address space size, and
> > in granularity of assignment, might make DNSBLs less reliable. Which is
> > a different kind of scalability.
>
Hi,
It would be great if the ietf list could be reminded when the new version
of the rather excellent xml2rfc tool is issued, so we don't need to keep
checking back for it.
Thanks,
Tim
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:03:36PM -0500, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
> Greetings. This message is to draw your atte
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:45:51AM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
> >Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?
>
> Yes there are. Here's the one I use:
>
> http://www.orangeware.com/endusers/wirelessformac.html
>
> There's a fairly long list of supported cards, some of which support
> 802.11a.
Hi,
I guess some people not in Dallas may have missed the news of the freak
local flooding here.
I was downtown with three colleagues and tried to come back to the hotel
around 5.30pm Sunday and hit the huge traffic jam. Our taxi couldn't cross
the freeway to the hotel side because the police ha
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:43:11PM -0600, Jim Martin wrote:
> Gentlepeople,
> Yesterday and this morning, we had an issue for the wired and
> wireless networks in the Terminal Room area that prevented IPv4 RAs
> from reaching the user devices. This has been resolved and we believe
> we
Hi,
Is there any way a non-US citizen can buy one of the promotional 770's
available at the event and walk out with a receipt in their name?
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:35:13PM -0600, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 21:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
> >
> >This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
> >
> >That hasn't happened for a while. THANK YOU!
>
> Mmm
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:19PM -0600, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> The results is also better for all (even participants), because the
> logistics and local-planning is done more coherently.
I think there's some unfair handwaving in this thread.
One option however would be to seek 'partne
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
> Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
> quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
> is some amount of precedence for th
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
>
> VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim
meeting you need to determine which sy
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:10:47PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient
> > than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to
> > discus
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:43:57PM -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> >Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
> >put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
>
> Brian,
>
> this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying
> in t
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
> of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
> in Europe at the March 1991 IETF meeting, and about 19 out of 530
> in March 1993
Interesting discussion.
Keith is hitting all the nails on the head. Phillip seems to suggest
that consumers buy NATs out of choice. They don't have any choice.
I surveyed my final years students last month. Just four have a static
IPv4 allocation for their home network, and only one has more
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 01:54:52AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > If you deploy IPv6 NAT, you may as well stay with IPv4.
>
> You're the one who convinced me some three years ago that there will be
> IPv6 NAT no matter what, what's the message he
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:04:15PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> What was the problem again?
Apparently that Steve Deering is an arrogant, stupid engineer.
Allegedly ;)
--
Tim/::1
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:36:18PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> The thing that is good about IPv6 is that once you get yourself a /
> 64, you can subdivide it yourself and still have four billion times
> the IPv4 address space. (But you'd be giving up the autoconfiguration
> advanta
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:07:50PM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> Thanks to IAD for opening registration (helps with visa requests, although
> this is less of a problem in Canada than "elsewhere in North America").
Yes, very nice to have the hotel and registration open 3 month in advance
this
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:29:21PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Tomorrow Saturday June 3 at 12:00am EST, we will be taking down one of
> the round robin www servers for the IETF (209.173.53.180) for
> maintenance in preparation for supporting IPV6. The outage should be
> less
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> Having to choose between /60 and /48 would be much better than having
> to choose between /64 and bigger in general, as it removes the "will
> I ever need a second subnet" consideration, the average allocation
> size g
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
>
>To echo Harald's words from Dallas:
>
> - Just wanted to state what's obvious to all of us by now:
>
> - This time the wireless WORKED, and Just Went On Working.
>
> - THANK YOU!
>
>In addition, I want to extend
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Stephen Campbell wrote:
>
> Or skip the car. Fly into LAX, take one of several shuttles to Los
> Angeles Union Station, and take Amtrak's "Surfliner" to San Diego.
> These trains run every 1 to 2 hours and get to San Diego in less than
> 3 hours. And
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:56:08AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
> densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
> what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
> feedback.
Improving WLAN (802
Hi,
While I can establish a fast telnet session to port 80:
$ telnet www.ietf.org 80
Trying 2001:503:c779:b::d1ad:35b4...
Connected to www.ietf.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
Attempting to browse via MSIE leads to timeouts.
Connecting explictly to http://209.173.53.180 to assure IPv4 works fine
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:25:19PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Tim Chown wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While I can establish a fast telnet session to port 80:
> >
> >$ telnet www.ietf.org 80
> >Trying 2001:503:c779:b::d1ad:35b4...
> >Conn
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:48:10PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> How sure are you these have a MTU of 1500? Best way to test is to do
> ping6's in the form of "ping6 -M do -s 1500 " and decrementing
> per 10 or 20 till it doesn't respond anymore and then increasing again.
>
> >19: 52.ge0-0.c
Isn't he barred from posting here?
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson.
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --Dean
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> >
> > > > From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:10:16AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> if routing protocols aren't scary enough for you...
>
> http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/scary_tech/index.html
"Unexpected failure modes led to the early withdrawal of IPv5"
--
Tim
___
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:23:21PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
> I visited Prague about two years ago and had the same experience as Ed. I
> traveled via the Metro and on foot, visited all the tourist traps; had no
> problems and never felt unsafe.
I second that. The metro system was excellent; it
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:37:26AM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The problem is that until IPv6 has critical mass it is much better to be on
> IPv4 than IPv6.
>
> If there are any grad students reading the list take a look at the game
> theory literature and apply it to the transition.
Hi,
[non xml2rfc users look away]
I'm seeing xml.resource.org timing out today, and it seems consistent
on one of the two returned IPv4 addresses I see for it (192.20.225.40).
$ telnet xml.resource.org 80
Trying 168.143.123.173...
Connected to xml.resource.org.
Es
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:55:39PM -, John Levine wrote:
>
> ... walk from the Palmer House unless it's raining really hard.
>
> ... If it's raining,
So there's me thinking Chicago in July will be mid 80's sunshine, and
you mention rain twice in one email :)
--
Tim
_
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> To summary: what problem do we try to solve?
either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income
do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while
the i-d live in the automated part of the process?
tim
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:29:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to
> establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever
> patented by someone else.
I have written or co-written a few drafts in the past purely as p
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:05:09PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >
> > > Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
> > > no, and with
> > > PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
> >
> > I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
> > unwilli
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> > The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring.
> that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been
> made on the ietf list.
More of an ostrich than a herring?
.=
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > Maybe its not mentioned because its not a practical solution. But
> > whatever the reason it isn't mentioned, a 25 million user VPN is not
> > going to happen with 10/8. A comcast person
Hi,
I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
I'd noticed drafts appearing over the weekend rather than in a batch
batch as usual this evening. Must be welcomed by the RFC editors
too!
Cheers,
--
Tim
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 08:53:37AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Tim Chown wrote:
> >I'd just like to compliment whoever implemented the new web based
> >IETF draft submission tool. Very simple to use and rather slick :)
>
> +10
>
> Easy to use, and ast
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
