Hello Tom,
The privacy countermeasure for IPv4/IPv6 is interestingly different.
IPv4 usually utilize CGNAT, i.e., M(hosts)-to-N(IPs), where M >> N so that the
host could remain anonymous
IPv6 usually utilize Temporary address, i.e., 1(host)-to-M(IPs[at least suffix
level]), where M >> 1 so that
Jumping into this late (due to a few days off), see inline.
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: 18 December 2021 20:51
To: Stewart Bryant ; Geoff Huston
Cc: Int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Where/How is the fea
Just as a thought: how much is this discussion led by the use of Internet
technologies for the public Internet vs use of Internet technologies for
non-public use or limited domains (or even something we may consider future
versions of the 'public internet')? In other words, is this trend to
cen
Sourceless Network Architecture or proposals that related are quite an vivid
example of innovation expected to be happened.
Challenges are how/where the proposals at such architectural level could happen
at current Internet? (which is expected to be pervasive IPv6 but still
dominated by IPv4)
G
Le 20/12/2021 à 10:44, Jiayihao a écrit :
Sourceless Network Architecture or proposals that related are quite
an vivid example of innovation expected to be happened.
Challenges are how/where the proposals at such architectural level
could happen at current Internet? (which is expected to be pe
Joe, I will do my best to respond to your points in the following top posts;
you may not
like it but it is the best I can do:
- You still haven’t shown any evidence that end systems need to do all this
extra work so they can somehow run faster, nor that this will be noticeably
faster than large
Hi, Fred,
You haven’t addressed my concerns.
Comparing this to GRO/GSO (which are not mentioned in RFC9000) only highlights
its challenges; GRO/GSO packs up to the existing path MTU, i.e., it’s for
packets smaller than the path MTU; it never comes into play for protocols that
send packets alre
>
>
> The world is not just TCP anymore. QUIC and other UDP-based transports
> have already
>
> shown performance increases using facilities like GSO/GRO which are
> essentially a short
>
> term and non-standard implementation of what parcels promise to do in the
> long term.
>
Fred,
Can you expl
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:27 AM Jiayihao wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
>
>
> The privacy countermeasure for IPv4/IPv6 is interestingly different.
>
> IPv4 usually utilize CGNAT, i.e., M(hosts)-to-N(IPs), where M >> N so that
> the host could remain anonymous
>
> IPv6 usually utilize Temporary address,
On 20-Dec-21 22:35, Dirk Trossen wrote:
Jumping into this late (due to a few days off), see inline.
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: 18 December 2021 20:51
To: Stewart Bryant ; Geoff Huston
Cc: Int-area@ietf.org
Su
Tom, sorry I will try to use my words more carefully; I am using GSO/GRO also
for
a UDP-based transport protocol – not QUIC but something similar. I like GSO/GRO
very much; I am glad the service is available and I want to see it continue.
But, my
understanding of the services is that they leverag
Le 18/12/2021 à 23:47, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 19-Dec-21 11:34, Dino Farinacci wrote:
From a user perspective, the choice is clear: privacy and security are
top requirements. We know that payload encryption goes a long way, and
hopefully encryption of the transport layer headers will b
Le 18/12/2021 à 15:49, Dino Farinacci a écrit :
Let’s just see if the Gen-Z, web3.0, blockchain, and metaverse
generation can make pure decentralized peer-to-peer come to reality.
I would say too to look at these ^ directions.
It might be that we head towards a world where most things are 's
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:03 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote:
> Tom, sorry I will try to use my words more carefully; I am using GSO/GRO
> also for
>
> a UDP-based transport protocol – not QUIC but something similar. I like
> GSO/GRO
>
> very much; I am glad the service
Le 19/12/2021 à 20:53, to...@strayalpha.com a écrit :
Hi, Fred (et al.),
On Dec 19, 2021, at 10:21 AM, Templin (US), Fred L
mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>>
wrote:
Joe, your insistence on using html makes it impossible to respond
to all of your points inline which is the reason for my t
Tom, in modern reassembly it is not going to wait for the MSL for all fragments
to arrive anymore; either they all get there after a very small inter-fragment
delay, or you send an immediate FRAGREP and possibly also a PTB soft error
then quickly declare the reassembly dead if that doesn’t help. An
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 3:11 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote:
> Tom, in modern reassembly it is not going to wait for the MSL for all
> fragments
>
> to arrive anymore; either they all get there after a very small
> inter-fragment
>
> delay, or you send an immediate FRAG
17 matches
Mail list logo
