RMON Agent
Hello Everybody, Can anybody tell me , from where can i get an RMON agent. I need it badly. thnqs in anticipation, Saurabh Dave
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Sean, there were several interesting talks in the ietf plenary last night and i'd also like to respond 1/ randy's "woah, the DNS is bust" talk solution - put your named boot file on your web server and set up robots.txt right get the 15 or so most popular search engines to start pulling it add an option to name resolution libraries to use http and google/altavista/bla blah to lookup name/address bindings (i.e. replace lookup with search and update with web crawl - you can also make your dns update hapen faster by articficially hyping the searches - yo ucan even include advertisements in the responses) positive points i) there are too many levels in the DNS server hierartchy - the name hierarchy is important, but there is no reaso nto have multiple levels in the server hierarchy - once upoj a time it was needed for some scaling (localisation) of traffic - dns traffic is irrelvant compared with web, so there's no problem doing it with 2 levels local/global - also, the caching isnt working (as per randy and christian huitema's work) anyhow so the localisdtion effects merely add latency to lookups i nthe current system ii) there's lots of differt code for differ nt search enginees this means we have a decent gene pool size compared with the DNS server space where there's a good chance that like BGP, we are dead in the water come the first new disease that we have no immunity too... 2/ NATs - i thought the comment was that there are too may ways of architecting NATs which made it expensivce to buy one coz most the NAT box builders are busy implementing all the varireities which makes them complex instead of simple - two solutions i) no ietf standards effort should continue after we have 3 approaches to a problem - given NAT, IP tunnels and mpls have about 7, 14 and 143 different approaches, this is evidentially a good heuristic for pruning pointless ietf wgs - of course those mpls watchers amongst us may have noticed that this is happening there (note this doesn't invalidate my approach to fixing name serving about since that is a single architecture buyt with lots of differnt detaield implemtnation approaches) 3/ internationalisation - its clear that we are making great progress - the gentleman from the ITU made it clear in his speaking that are much better at understanding christian huitema which is a great breakthrough... 4/ those of you who saw geoff huston's excellent "the bgp is hosed" talk at the routing area meeting, and its excerpted comments in the plenary should be very afraid - i did a search on a citation database on routing research - not to see what work has been done recently on ways to solve inter-domain scaling, convergence and correctness problems (though craig labovitz work is distinguised there by both its quality, and its loneliness!), but also to see if there was any indication that there was research in universities and research labs that was runnign at a level that might indicate clueful people coming out of their grad schools ready to solve our problems - there isnt. the research funding agents should be blamed for this:-) (note that i am not talking about graph theoertizcians - more the mit/berkeley/usc type research work that is done in a real world context) note that a major problem with the little wortk that is done is that its not often done in realistic topologies - this is a problem with ISPs who wont let people get at the data (or the traffic traces) so with a few honourable exceptions, most the smart people trying to do new stuff go on to other areas where there aren;t intractable barriers to doig the experimental verficaition of the idea (e.g. transport:-) cheers jon p.s. pierro de la francesca or vermeer make better gurus, but if you want to read about routing and addressing and what we ccould have done for ipng, i like paul francis' phd work: (linked from http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/jon/paststudents.html so you can see my bias:-) it elegantly included some ideas from nimrod, but had some pragmatic implementation decisions whioch made it fast and simple and flexible - it emerged as pip, but was about 95% pruned out in the final v6 decisions...
Re: guidance (re: social event politeness)
...and speaking of bad manners, I noticed that there is a resurgence of people talking mobile-phone calls in meetings. I was only there for one day but it happened twice in three meetings. Another annoyance is those who allow it to ring and then cancel the call (presumably using CLI or something). This is not as bad but still pretty disruptive, particularly for the person speaking at the time. Please switch them off. You shouldn't need to be asked. John --- Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 23 567 9615 Kruisweg 799 Fax: +31 23 567 9699 NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600 ---
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Sean Doran wrote: So, why are people deploying them? Just to name two... 1) With NAT I ask for much smaller address spaces. Consequently, I don't have to disclose my network details, deployment is less likely to be delayed, and both my non-recurring and recurring cost is lower. 2) I don't have to renumber my entire enterprise should I change service providers, rather only the Internet interface devices. True IPv6 *may* change this if it is ever routed across the Internet, all of my vendors incorporate IPv6 into their products, and everyone on the Internet changes their equipment, too (sans IPv4/IPv6 gateways).
RE: guidance (re: social event politeness)
Look, over a year ago, I was made painfully aware of the of the automated vacation notice propagating emails to members of lists. It was never my intent to inconvenience anyone by using the vacation notices function, rather just the opposite. I'm an Outlook user as it's the corporate standard on PCs and I would welcome information concerning any other mail package that would interact appropriately with an Outlook Exchange server that would include the capability to specify email ids which would be excepted from the automatic response function. It is plainly evident that Microsoft considers the inconvenience of the IETF, and other similarly organized groups, and the resultant negation of the value of this feature as small potatoes. Just how many lines of code and hours of testing would it take to make this a smooth feature? Probably not as many as have been lost for all the people who have had to deal the effluent. -Original Message- From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 11:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: guidance (re: social event politeness) From: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another common curtesy issue this thread has raised is vacation scripts... I've recieved 3 dozen or so responses from people on the mailing list who have automated vacation scripts. Please if you must use a vaction script on your mail either unsubscribe from the mailing list while you're gone, use procmail to filter your lists so they don't get caught by your vacation script, or just don't use vacation... It's far from all vacation mechanisms that do the evil deed. If you look at the headers, you'll almost certainly find a telltale line of the form: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (... All ordinary submissions with that black mark should be rejected. All requests sent to IETF list control addresses should be interpreted as unsubscribe requests. This would not purge the lists of the current abusers (those who insist on using that junkware and abusing the rest of us), but it would reduce their proliferation and encourage some to switch reasonable MUA's. If the IETF doesn't try to enforce minimal standards where it affects the business of the IETF, then the junkware vendors will never bother to fix their junk. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:55:48 +0100, Sean Doran said: So, why are people deploying them? They are so awful, that it must only happen when people have NO OTHER OPTION. A quick analysis of most of the evils of the last 2 millenia or so would reveal that most were perpetrated for one of several reasons: 1) "God told me to do it". This includes evil by reason of mental defect. Examples: too numerous to mention... 2) "I didn't know better". Examples: Deforestation by the locals. 3) "I was just following orders". (only for orders from non-deities - see 1) Examples: Anything you've had to install because a VP saw an 8x11 glossy. 4) "It seemed like a good idea at the time". Examples: Deforestation by large corporations, anything you asked the VP for money for, but wasn't worth it but now it's an albatross you can't kill I haven't decided which of the four NAT should be blamed on. Probably all. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
prova på
www.citycash.nu
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
I see we're about to embark on the 7th iteration of the NAT mail wars. I don't believe anything new is going to come out of it. Last night's arguments at the microphones were quoted from previous mail. Could you take it somewhere else? Is there an alt.nat group?
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
i can just see it when the aliens land and ask how to connect to our infrastructure, we'll have to say oh we used to have an internet, but it lost something in the translation j.
the pre-plenary video?
is the video shown at the beginning of the plenary last night available anywhere? who's volumetric 3-d network mapping stuff was that in there? and who's the pleasant loonies behind the vid anyways? thanks, JeffH
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
You do not consider IPv6 an option? ipv6 is working just fine even here at IETF49 venue, it's so much more convenient than IPv4, for couple of reasons. - DHCPv4 lease time is set to 10 minutes, and we keep changing IPv4 address. if I suspend my laptop, go to bathroom and resume, i'll have to reconnect all of IPv4 TCP sessions I had. we do not have the problem with IPv6. - we have no problem reaching IPv4 world with IPv6, we have IPv6-to- IPv4 translator here (http://www.kame.net/ietf49/). so, migrate to IPv6. you will be happier. itojun
Re: the pre-plenary video?
The pleasent loonies are from caida. Dr Claffy and co. joelja On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is the video shown at the beginning of the plenary last night available anywhere? who's volumetric 3-d network mapping stuff was that in there? and who's the pleasant loonies behind the vid anyways? thanks, JeffH -- -- Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Academic User Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -- It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the right, 1843.
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Tony Dal Santo wrote: Dennis Glatting wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Sean Doran wrote: So, why are people deploying them? Just to name two... 1) With NAT I ask for much smaller address spaces. Consequently, I don't have to disclose my network details, deployment is less likely to be delayed, and both my non-recurring and recurring cost is lower. 2) I don't have to renumber my entire enterprise should I change service providers, rather only the Internet interface devices. What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? I realize there is a PERCEIVED shortage, and this is usually the main motivation for NAT. But is there a real shortage? Are "reasonable" requests for addresses being denied? As for the renumbering hassle, if you have a small installation, renumbering shouldn't be all that difficult (especially when using DHCP). For large installations, doesn't the organization own the address pool, and take it with them when they change ISPs? I know this used to be the case. Ever renumbered and enterprise? DHCP is the cheap and easy part, and sometimes not so. Reconfiguring fielded lap tops is much harder (such as domain entries and VPN), as is making any configuration changes to servers, such as 24x7 ERP systems. The last time I renumbered an enterprise it was an enterprise of about 1000 nodes spread across seven states. It took a quarter to get the cheap and easy stuff done, which included travel to the smaller sites who had no IT staff. It took another quarter to get the harder stuff (active servers, take out hacks, etc.). And it took another quarter to clean up all of the stragglers (people who hard coded /etc/hosts, started old applications, turn on old machines, etc.). You can't get address pool space from ARIN for anything less than a /20, last I looked. If it isn't an address issue, is it a routing issue? Is it that the routing tables/protocols/hardware can't handle the large number of routes? Are ISPs refusing to carry reasonable routes? Seems to me if the entire address space was broken up into subnets of 4096, there would be about 1 million routes. What is the current size? I think I remember seeing numbers on the order of 50,000. Current size as of a few months ago was 85k routes. If there is a real shortage or routing problem, I understand the motivation to use NAT. There really wouldn't be a reasonable alternative. But I have yet to hear anyone claim that a reasonable request has been denied. Based on that, I tend to think most NAT installations are motiviated by other (and in my opinion less valid) issues such as "security". Tony Dal Santo
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
If it isn't an address issue, is it a routing issue? Is it that the routing tables/protocols/hardware can't handle the large number of routes? Are ISPs refusing to carry reasonable routes? Seems to me if the entire address space was broken up into subnets of 4096, there would be about 1 million routes. What is the current size? I think I remember seeing numbers on the order of 50,000. Current size as of a few months ago was 85k routes. correct. Now its pushing around 100,000, That's a relatively steep growth curve. (www.telstra.net/ops/bgp) The rate of growth in the table and the prefix length distribution in the table both point to the growth of small prefixes (/24) as a major factor in the growth of the routing table. There are strong indications that NAT is one factor behind this part of the BGP table. Now I'm not saying that this is either good or bad - what is evident is that much of the recent growth in the deployed Internet has happened behind NATs of various forms and the side effect is low levels of overall address space growth as reflected in the span of address space advertised in the BGP tables, but an increasing finer level of granularity in the routing table. There are of course other factors also at play which are causing the same outcomes, so NAT is not the only driver. So its not NATS *are* evil - NATs are very commonly used these days and we simply cannot deny their existence nor condemn their use as unworkable. NATs are a *compromise* - some folk find the compromise unacceptable - others do not. These days out there in the network as my bgp table sees it, a large number of folk find NATs a comfortable compromise. I won't speculate whether these folk are making a fully informed decision or not - the BGP table has no such data embedded in it that can be reliably interpreted. regards, Geoff
Congestion control
For an industry that has been predicated on queuing theory that permits managing data traffic through moments of transient congestion, the idea that the best way to achieve Quality of Service is simply to throw excess bandwidth at the problem is quaint. On the other hand, that simplistic congestion control approach has some appeal for planning IETF meeting capacity. Rather than trying to carefully provide "enough" meeting room capacity for expected attendance, what would be the effect of reserving *too much* capacity for our meetings? For example, ensure that rooms are 50% larger than we think they need to be and make sure there are some extra rooms, in case we need to move an oversubscribed group to a larger room. The only two effects I can think of are: extra dollars and further restrictions on where we can meet. The latter is inevitable given our growth, the planning trick would merely accelerate the constraint. How bad would the extra cost be? Given the work we do in these meetings and the negative effect of overcrowding, is the extra cost worthwhile? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg Consulting www.brandenburg.com Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
Re: the pre-plenary video?
At 11:47 AM 12/14/2000, you wrote: and who's the pleasant loonies behind the vid anyways? Pleasant loonies? Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Dennis Glatting wrote: If it isn't an address issue, is it a routing issue? Is it that the routing tables/protocols/hardware can't handle the large number of routes? Are ISPs refusing to carry reasonable routes? Seems to me if the entire address space was broken up into subnets of 4096, there would be about 1 million routes. What is the current size? I think I remember seeing numbers on the order of 50,000. Current size as of a few months ago was 85k routes. Today's global BGP table (at least from one view) contains approx. 95,000 entries (and it went over 100,000 for a short time yesterday). Take a look at http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/routing/ for three years' history and a daily generated list of aggregation possibilities which could take the routing table down to a mere 65,000 or so entries. James
Terminal room lost and found
A couple of laptop power supplies, a mouse and a USB cable have been left behind in the terminal room. If you've missing an item like this, drop me a note, and I'll see if I have it. -- john noerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- It's been said that a romantic is someone who never accepts the evidence of her eyes and ears. -- Greg Bear, Moving Mars, 1993 --
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
I see we're about to embark on the 7th iteration of the NAT mail wars. I don't believe anything new is going to come out of it. I wish I were so optimistic to think that nothing new would come of NATs...unfortunately, the NAT group keeps inventing more cruft. Keith
What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
As a representative of of one of the co-hosts for this meeting, I am equally gratified and terrorized to have the distinction hosting the largest IETF meeting to date (I fully expect this meeting to be surpassed soon). Fred's summary of the diversity of the IETF was truly impressive. But in retrospect, one thing he said bothered me greatly. He mentioned there were representatives of some five hundred different organizations at this meeting. That too is impressive. But it's that word "representative" I find disquieting. We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals committed to building the best Internet we can. Becoming part of a working group means you leave your company badge at the door. As the Internet has become more and more a commercial place, and the setting for business and commerce, the pressure to bend the way the Internet works to one's particular advantage at the expense of others increases. This is not part of our heritage. It is not part of our Tao. We come together because the Internet belongs to no one country, or organization. Rather it exists for all. We can look forward to a Net which not only spans the Earth, but gives every person in every country, the opportunity and the means to learn from any other regardless of their home, their beliefs or their physical capabilities. It is a wonderful thing. And we must remember it is our responsibility to preserve and enhance it for those who will come after. -- john noerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- If we admire the Net, should not a burden of proof fall on those who would change the basic assumptions that brought it about in the first place? -- David Brin, "The Transparent Society", 1998 --
Re: Congestion control
Given that the overcrowding at this IETF was the worst ever, and really interfered with work, not to mention the social event ... Building on a previous suggestion: * When you register for the IETF, you specify which WGs you are interested in in priority order. * Simultaneously WG Chairs submit lists of people who are active. This includes chairs for new WGs and BOFs. * The agenda and room assignments coalesce based in part on expected attendance -- this probably continues to require hand-crafting. * Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms, giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG chairs). Once a room is full no one is added. OK, this is the cruddiest part, but leave the details for now. * People receive mail saying which WGs they have been granted access to. They can apply for more, but they probably won't get in, which means there is a strong incentive to have specific reasons why they want to go to the IETF when they register in the first place. * When they come to the IETF their packets contain not only a receipt (the point being that the packets are already individualized) but an authenticated (anything, a little ink stamp, even) schedule, which they have to show at the meeting room door to get in the room. * "Standby" entry is allowed if there are seats not taken 5 minutes before the meeting starts. Details can be explored based on what you think of this in principle. ...Scott
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Tony Dal Santo wrote: What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? Hilarie Orman, Scott Marcus and I will be working together over the next few weeks to get a more up-to-date view of the world. As soon as we get something together, we'll announce it to the list. -- Frank
Re: Terminal room lost and found
small two button usb mouse and sony usb cable in black bag? actually left in plenary last night? randy
Re: Congestion control
* Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms, giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG chairs). Once a room is full no one is added. OK, this is the cruddiest part, but leave the details for now. Eso some people get cut off even during registration process??? What does it mean active? How about newcomers? Would it not be a nice idea to simply find a hotel with enough number of big rooms so that everyone who wants can fit in? At least at registration time? And then you can have stand-by for people that did not register but suddenly decided they would like to attend some sessions. Jelena
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Frank, This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much on the method used. I think we could react to the numbers more rationally if we discussed the method first. Thanks anyway Brian Frank Solensky wrote: Tony Dal Santo wrote: What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? Hilarie Orman, Scott Marcus and I will be working together over the next few weeks to get a more up-to-date view of the world. As soon as we get something together, we'll announce it to the list. -- Frank
Re: Congestion control
I think this is a really, really, really bad idea. This is my first IETF. I had read all the drafts of what interested me before going here. I thought that was enough. Boy was I wrong. I am now also subscribed to the mailiglists... However, I have been to several of the other gatherings of the same people (mostly RIPE) and I thought I was somewhat prepeared for what this woudl be like. I wasn't. This was unlike anything I have seen so far. I have learnt alot and I have really enjoyed following the discussions and meeting the people. This was my first IETF but hopefully not the last. I have learnt some of how the IETF works. I will be following the mailinglist discussions, and maybe I can contribute something. Maybe I oneday in the future can contribute something at a meeting. I hope so. I don't think that this "awakening" should be limited to people that have been active on mailinglists. It's not the same thing, and it will "scare" people off. I really hope that instead the logistical problems can be overcome. - kurtis - On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Scott Brim wrote: Given that the overcrowding at this IETF was the worst ever, and really interfered with work, not to mention the social event ... Building on a previous suggestion: * When you register for the IETF, you specify which WGs you are interested in in priority order. * Simultaneously WG Chairs submit lists of people who are active. This includes chairs for new WGs and BOFs. * The agenda and room assignments coalesce based in part on expected attendance -- this probably continues to require hand-crafting. * Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms, giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG chairs). Once a room is full no one is added. OK, this is the cruddiest part, but leave the details for now. * People receive mail saying which WGs they have been granted access to. They can apply for more, but they probably won't get in, which means there is a strong incentive to have specific reasons why they want to go to the IETF when they register in the first place. * When they come to the IETF their packets contain not only a receipt (the point being that the packets are already individualized) but an authenticated (anything, a little ink stamp, even) schedule, which they have to show at the meeting room door to get in the room. * "Standby" entry is allowed if there are seats not taken 5 minutes before the meeting starts. Details can be explored based on what you think of this in principle. ...Scott
Re: Congestion control
(Continuing this for its value in exploring the issues ...) On 14 Dec 2000 at 16:57 -0800, Jelena Mirkovic apparently wrote: * Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms, giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG chairs). Once a room is full no one is added. OK, this is the cruddiest part, but leave the details for now. Eso some people get cut off even during registration process??? What does it mean active? How about newcomers? How about newcomers? IETF activity takes place primarily on mailing lists. IETF meetings are to resolve issues and reach closure. If you're not active, why are you coming? Would it not be a nice idea to simply find a hotel with enough number of big rooms so that everyone who wants can fit in? At least at registration time? And then you can have stand-by for people that did not register but suddenly decided they would like to attend some sessions. Yes of course. Our capacity needs are going beyond the capability of most meeting sites. ...Scott
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Frank, This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much on the method used. I think we could react to the numbers more rationally if we discussed the method first. Sure thing. Would it make sense to spin this off as a separate list?
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Geoff Huston wrote: The rate of growth in the table and the prefix length distribution in the table both point to the growth of small prefixes (/24) as a major factor in the growth of the routing table. There are strong indications that NAT is one factor behind this part of the BGP table. I believe that would be missinterpretation of the data. Operationally, there is strong pressure on ISPs to allocate few addresses to individual customers and I suspect that this philosophy moves upward in the address space allocation philosophy. Because the allocations occur in smaller chunks (to manage supply), there is less opportunity to aggregate larger blocks of addresses leading to the observation re small prefixes. NAT reduces the number of discrete IPs needed for an Internet connected site. It allows the restricted allocation philosophy, it doesn't cause it. Dave Morris
Re: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
But in retrospect, one thing he said bothered me greatly. He mentioned there were representatives of some five hundred different organizations at this meeting. That too is impressive. But it's that word "representative" I find disquieting. We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals He also introduced the ADs as "name from employer" after the IAB had been introduced solely by name. Throw the bum out! :-)
Re: Congestion control
I think this is a really, really, really bad idea. This is my first IETF. I had read all the drafts of what interested me before going here. I thought that was enough. Boy was I wrong. I am now also subscribed to the mailiglists... However, I have been to several of the other gatherings of the same people (mostly RIPE) and I thought I was somewhat prepeared for what this woudl be like. I wasn't. This was unlike anything I have seen so far. I have learnt alot and I have really enjoyed following the discussions and meeting the people. This was my first IETF but hopefully not the last. I have learnt some of how the IETF works. I will be following the mailinglist discussions, and maybe I can contribute something. Maybe I oneday in the future can contribute something at a meeting. I hope so. I don't think that this "awakening" should be limited to people that have been active on mailinglists. It's not the same thing, and it will "scare" people off. I really hope that instead the logistical problems can be overcome. - kurtis - On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Scott Brim wrote: Given that the overcrowding at this IETF was the worst ever, and really interfered with work, not to mention the social event ... Building on a previous suggestion: * When you register for the IETF, you specify which WGs you are interested in in priority order. * Simultaneously WG Chairs submit lists of people who are active. This includes chairs for new WGs and BOFs. * The agenda and room assignments coalesce based in part on expected attendance -- this probably continues to require hand-crafting. * Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms, giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG chairs). Once a room is full no one is added. OK, this is the cruddiest part, but leave the details for now. * People receive mail saying which WGs they have been granted access to. They can apply for more, but they probably won't get in, which means there is a strong incentive to have specific reasons why they want to go to the IETF when they register in the first place. * When they come to the IETF their packets contain not only a receipt (the point being that the packets are already individualized) but an authenticated (anything, a little ink stamp, even) schedule, which they have to show at the meeting room door to get in the room. * "Standby" entry is allowed if there are seats not taken 5 minutes before the meeting starts. Details can be explored based on what you think of this in principle. ...Scott
Re: Congestion control
At 03:58 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Scott Brim wrote: Building on a previous suggestion: Just to be clear, my suggestion is diametrically opposed to the list that you specified. You are suggesting very tight queue management. By the mid-70's, Kleinrock showed that these mechanisms do not work in the face of sustained overload. They only work when the problem is transient. Rather than trying to manage the congestion, I am suggesting that we throw money at the problem, to overbuy space so that we don't have the problem. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg Consulting www.brandenburg.com Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
Re: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
Hello: (I copy this to the poisson list, since I am somehow blocked from the IETF list). I am fully understand what your concern is. But, - what should those "corporate representative" do? - where should they go? best regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org --- the father of internet (al gore) for IAB -- NOMCOM2000 John W Noerenberg II wrote: As a representative of of one of the co-hosts for this meeting, I am equally gratified and terrorized to have the distinction hosting the largest IETF meeting to date (I fully expect this meeting to be surpassed soon). Fred's summary of the diversity of the IETF was truly impressive. But in retrospect, one thing he said bothered me greatly. He mentioned there were representatives of some five hundred different organizations at this meeting. That too is impressive. But it's that word "representative" I find disquieting. We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals committed to building the best Internet we can. Becoming part of a working group means you leave your company badge at the door. As the Internet has become more and more a commercial place, and the setting for business and commerce, the pressure to bend the way the Internet works to one's particular advantage at the expense of others increases. This is not part of our heritage. It is not part of our Tao. We come together because the Internet belongs to no one country, or organization. Rather it exists for all. We can look forward to a Net which not only spans the Earth, but gives every person in every country, the opportunity and the means to learn from any other regardless of their home, their beliefs or their physical capabilities. It is a wonderful thing. And we must remember it is our responsibility to preserve and enhance it for those who will come after. -- john noerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- If we admire the Net, should not a burden of proof fall on those who would change the basic assumptions that brought it about in the first place? -- David Brin, "The Transparent Society", 1998 --
RE: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
But it's that word "representative" I find disquieting. I second everything you said John. How does the IETF prevent a "RAMBUS" type scenario where a company sits in on IETF, copies the technologies, patents them, waits for everyone to adopt them, and then sues everyone for infringement? This is very concerning to me. I want so much to go hog wild with new ideas and work for IETF, but I don't want the work to be thrown against me in courts by a hidden observer claiming the work to be proprietary. The work done in IETF should be unpatentable... the question is.. is it? I am sure it's been discussed before, can someone point me to how the "RAMBUS" scenario is prevented? Regards, Kyle Lussier
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Itojun; You do not consider IPv6 an option? ipv6 is working just fine even here at IETF49 venue, it's so much more convenient than IPv4, for couple of reasons. We can't use IPv6 until multihoming issues are properly solved and global routing table size and the number of ASes are controlled to be below reasonable upper bound. IETF is intensively working on the issue that a new WG (multi6) will be created to draft a framwork document. So, you can expect lengthy framework document effectively stating nothing more than that the issue is hard, within a year or two. Well, I have a solution. But, last time I tried this kind of thing (proposed that subscribers be assigned /48 IPv6 address ranges or renumbering and other things are too hard just before IPv6 went to PS), it was rejected with a reason that it is too late. As you can see, 5 years are wasted until IAB and IESG make the same statement that assignments should be /48. Masataka Ohta
Re: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
He also introduced the ADs as "name from employer" after the IAB had been introduced solely by name. I don't like the word "representatives" either. But employers who support employees' IESG and IAB participation certainly deserve to be recognized, since such an employee will spend a tremendous amount of "work time", and a non-trivial amount of travel money, on IESG or IAB activities. Keith
Re: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
At 3:34 PM -0800 12/14/00, John W Noerenberg II wrote: We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals committed to building the best Internet we can. Becoming part of a working group means you leave your company badge at the door. As the Internet has become more and more a commercial place, and the setting for business and commerce, the pressure to bend the way the Internet works to one's particular advantage at the expense of others increases. This is not part of our heritage. It is not part of our Tao. We come together because the Internet belongs to no one country, or organization. Rather it exists for all. We can look forward to a Net which not only spans the Earth, but gives every person in every country, the opportunity and the means to learn from any other regardless of their home, their beliefs or their physical capabilities. It is a wonderful thing. And we must remember it is our responsibility to preserve and enhance it for those who will come after. So let's change the way we're identified on the badges to NOT include organizational identity. And NOT include the organizational affiliation(s) on the published attendees list. As an adjunct to the above suggestion, how about ISOC offering to provide e-mail forwarding (ala IEEE) for IETF participants after some number of consecutive meetings attended...
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
ipv6 is working just fine even here at IETF49 venue, it's so much more convenient than IPv4, for couple of reasons. We can't use IPv6 until multihoming issues are properly solved and global routing table size and the number of ASes are controlled to be below reasonable upper bound. If I am reading this right you want a upper bound for routing table size? Well,considering the problems some operators have to aggreagate maybe that would be a good idea...:) - kurtis -
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
hi all, i'm late in giving my contribution to this subject, as i'm on the other side of world... regarding NAT, its not horrible at all. as u all must be knowing its the solution that was provided to the problem of reducing IPv4 addresses. Yes, there is a shortage of ipv4 addresses. Initially they were allocated to big organisations without thinking anything, now they are crying that 'sorry boss! its all over'. In this condition, NAT comes to rescue. You might have had bad experiences, but i think it depends on implementation. As there is no fixed standard, so it depends on the implementation. happy natting... M. Dev Sean Doran wrote: Hi - I should have waited until Perry had spoken, because now that he has pointed out the extreme cost of NAT, I have seen the light! NATs are expensive. They have gross side-effects. Even Noel Chiappa, my guru, says that they are an architectural hack. So, why are people deploying them? They are so awful, that it must only happen when people have NO OTHER OPTION. So, I have to wonder, why is it that they have no option? Isn't it the job of the Internet Architecture Board to be addressing this serious problem, since the IETF's solution doesn't seem to be working??? Sean. -- Munish Dev Nortel Networks
Re: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:11:25 EST, Kyle Lussier said: How does the IETF prevent a "RAMBUS" type scenario where a company sits in on IETF, copies the technologies, patents them, waits for everyone to adopt them, and then sues everyone for infringement? They can't copy-and-patent the technology unless they have sufficiently deep pockets to deal with the inevitable prior-art lawsuits. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
Re: What is the IETF? -- A note of caution
Did we not just have this whole debate on the Poisson list or is this a new flavor? Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote: He also introduced the ADs as "name from employer" after the IAB had been introduced solely by name. I don't like the word "representatives" either. But employers who support employees' IESG and IAB participation certainly deserve to be recognized, since such an employee will spend a tremendous amount of "work time", and a non-trivial amount of travel money, on IESG or IAB activities. Keith
WLAN
Hi, nice to notice that the IETF WLAN is also working here at the Embassy Suites hotel, which is far (ab. 2 miles) away from the Sheraton... Is here a secret/uninformed access point or is the range of WLAN this awesome on this side of the world?-) BR, Teemu --- Teemu Rinta-aho[EMAIL PROTECTED] NomadicLab, Ericsson Research +358 9 299 3078 FIN-02420 Jorvas, Finland +358 40 562 3066 ---
