Original Message -
> From: "Steven Bellovin"
> > Which? African or European Swallows?
> >
> > (Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-)
>
> So the RFC needed more text in it's Security Considerations section,
> too...
People just don't put enough *thought* into their April 1 RFCs anym
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 5:56 PM
>
> In an IP network, the bandwidth constraints are almost always across an
> administrative boundary. This means in the majority of the case across
> transit circuits, not peering
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:24 PM
>
> But it also only affects priority queue traffic. I realize I'm making
> a value judgment, but many customers under DDoS would find things
> vastly improved if their video conf
I thank you for all the ideas that we get to exploit from this site...
On 04/01/2011 11:44 AM, George Bonser wrote:
From: Joao C. Mendes Ogawa
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhaustion Effects on the Earth
FYI
--Jonny Ogawa
- Forwarded message from Stephen H. Inden -
Dang, I was hoping to see an RFC on Bufferbloat in
The audio I found at
http://ietf80streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf80/ietf80-ch4-wed-am.mp3
Christian
On 3 Apr 2011, at 20:53, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 11:44 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> From: Joao C. Mendes Ogawa
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:14 PM
>>> Subject: Fwd: IPv4 Address Exhau
>
> Sigh... A major opportunity missed.
>
> Unfortunately the bufferbloat problem isn't a laughing matter, though
I
> do wish I had thought of this idea in time for my talk. I will
include
> this joke as some levity about the mess we're in as I repeat the talk
> going forward, and would tie in
7 matches
Mail list logo
