Re: in memoriam
At 06:05 PM 10/18/2001, Einar Stefferud wrote: >What I think is a real shame is that ICANN might be mistakenly >considered by some people to to be a monument to Jon Postel... with all due respect, would you mind if I spent a few minutes thinking about Jon, the good things he did and left, and the good things we can do and leave while standing on his shoulders? Take this other stuff somewhere else. I don't need you to ruin my day.
Re: about 802.1x
I think that is what the quoted passage means. I would guess that it is stated because the EAPOL frames are meant to be "host to switch" communication, and therefore, tagging is not needed. Regards, Justin On Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 06:38 AM, TOMSON ERIC wrote: > I'm not sure, but I guess there will be no 802.1Q VLAN tagging, while > there will be 802.1p prioritization tagging. > I mean, those frames would not use the VLAN tagging fields, while they > would use the priority fields. > Could somebody confirm? > > E.T. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > hi > > In 7.4 of IEEE Std 802.1x-2001, why to say " EAPOL frames > transmitted by a PAE > > shall not be VLAN tagged, but may optionally be priority tagged"? > > > > > > > --- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics| Director of Technology | If you're not confused, Nexsi Systems Corp.| You're not paying attention 1959 Concourse Drive | San Jose, CA 95131| *--*---*
Re: in memoriam
Randy Bush wrote: > lest we forget on whose shoulders we stand, jon postel died three years ago > today. > > randy FYI, USC/ISI has create the Postel Center for Experimental Networking (PCEN) to carry forward Jon's stewardship of the Internet, to perform "Network research in service to the Internet community." Further information on the center, and how you can help contribute to its endowment to support scholars and students in fulfilling this mission can be found at: http://www.postel.org/ FWIW, his birthday was August 6, a day I prefer to use to celebrate his legacy to the Internet. :-) Joe Touch Director, PCEN
"...cast bright lights on all who would destroy freedom in the world..."
http://www.icdri.org/words_for_all_of_us_from_vinton_.htm "Now, more than ever, the Internet must be wielded along with other media to cast bright lights on all who would destroy freedom in the world. Information is the torch of truth and its free flow is the bloodstream of democracy." ICANN destroys freedom by rejecting companies far more qualified than those selected to launch new TLDs. The IETF leaders destroy freedom by censorship. The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer. IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer. IPv16 is the "high-ground" ...here are some links... Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
Re: The IETF has no members ?
According to the IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org "The IETF is an organized activity of the Internet Society" Is the Internet Society a U.S. company or based in Switzerland ? Jim Fleming http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Original Message - From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:47 AM Subject: Re: The IETF has no members ? > removing the spam list... > > At 03:38 AM 10/17/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Any contributor to > >the IETF is effectively a member of it. > > In any practical sense, you're probably correct, but as I understand it > (IANAL), not in a legal sense. The sense that an organization has > "members", which is the context raised, that has to be defined somewhere, > and we have no such formal definition. >
RE: about 802.1x
I'm not sure, but I guess there will be no 802.1Q VLAN tagging, while there will be 802.1p prioritization tagging. I mean, those frames would not use the VLAN tagging fields, while they would use the priority fields. Could somebody confirm? E.T. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] hi In 7.4 of IEEE Std 802.1x-2001, why to say " EAPOL frames transmitted by a PAE shall not be VLAN tagged, but may optionally be priority tagged"?
R.I.P IPv4....Re: in memoriam
- Original Message - From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What I think is a real shame is that ICANN might be mistakenly > considered by some people to to be a monument to Jon Postel... > In my opinion, ICANN has turned out to be exactly what Jon had intended. You were present at the same meeting I was where he disclosed his intention to appoint a Board of people, whom, he described as, "Not the kind of people who would want their names on the Internet.". It is my opinion, that Jon knew that the IPv4 Internet was aging and needed to be handed to someone to be carted away, and buried in a land-fill. ICANN is doing an excellent job of that. It will not be long and people will likely be able to say, "IPv4?...Oh, no one goes there any more". At best, IPv4 will be a convienant interconnect for private home networks, for legacy intranets, for the embedded WAN-based networks that can not be easily changed, and for third-world countries who traditionally lag behind the U.S. in technology. ICANN will have a ready audience there, but not in the U.S. where companies like New.Net have rallied the major ISPs and added 30 new TLDs to ICANN's 2 which still do not work. Jim Fleming http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
Re: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02526.html Re: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please Michael M. Roberts Managing Director, The Darwin Group, Inc. DNSO/BC member Can you state for the record whether you continue to be paid directly or indirectly by ICANN ? [ Yes | No ] Please do not cite an RFC for an answer. By the way, I have never known calls for "Peace on Earth" to be out of order. Can we assume that ICANN does not promote Peace on Earth ? Jim Fleming Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today ! http://www.DOT-BIZ.com 0:212 - BIZ World
Re: Forward value reference
Hi - > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:11:16 -0700 (PDT) > From: chintan sheth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Forward value reference > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... > I was going through various MIBs and found that in few > of them "forward value reference" for an Object > identifier is used. I didnt find that in standard MIBs > like RMON, RMON2, SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB, SNMP-TARGET-MIB, > RFC1213-MIB etc. > > Kindly let me know asap, if "forward value reference" > for an Object identifier is allowed or not. ... Yes, it is allowed. -- Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA -- My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. --
about 802.1x
hi In 7.4 of IEEE Std 802.1x-2001, why to say " EAPOL frames transmitted by a PAE shall not be VLAN tagged, but may optionally be priority tagged"?
RE: Why IPv6 is a must?
(...) "And finally : do you really think that the IETF people (et al.) built IPv6 without a preliminary good consideration?" (...) ftp://ftp.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-online-proceedings/94jul/presentations/bradner/pre.bradner.mankin.slides.txt
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Keith Moore wrote: > > > Well, that is an experimental question. My feeling is that if a specific > > process question comes up - let's say, a proposal to increase IAB > > membership to 99 seats, to create a silly example - we could have a > > much more focussed discussion in the "iab99" WG with a very limited > > charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson. > > Problem is, process questions are not always that specific. If for > example there were a growing sense that WGs take too long, that IESG > approves too many broken documents, and that too many WGs are having > an adverse effect on the Internet architecture - the solution to > this problem might somehow involve IETF process, but we would not be > likely to find a solution by chartering a WG that is centered around > someone's draft proposal. True, but if someone writes a problem statement we could charter a SLOWBROKEN WG to find a solution. Brian
Re: in memoriam
Now that you have put the subject on the table... ++ At 08:51 -0700 17/10/01, Randy Bush wrote: > > it is important to pass the culture and people on to the students. > > ... > >apologies. i did not intend to post to the list. what is respectful >in private can be smarmy and somewhat hubritic in public. > >randy ++ What I think is a real shame is that ICANN might be mistakenly considered by some people to to be a monument to Jon Postel... Actually, Jon's proper monument would be the entire content of his beloved RFC series, which should certainly be enshrined and preserved in his memory, in read only archives on the net, and on CD and DVD as a Library Edition.. Best;-)...\Stef
Re: QOS [was Re: Why IPv6 is a must?]
- Original Message - From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:58 AM Subject: QOS [was Re: Why IPv6 is a must?] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > ... The QoS field in the header suffers from the same basic > > issues as source-routing of packets - they try to modify the global handling > > of packets with insufficient knowledge of global conditions. > > Your text mainly refers to IntServ about which I make no comment. But the diffserv > header field (formerly known as TOS in IPv4, known as Traffic Class in IPv6) > is explicitly *not* global - it is meaningful per domain, and only makes > sense in a domain that has been appropriately configured. See RFC 2474, 2475 > and 3086 for more. > The QoS field in IPv8 (formerly known as TOS in IPv4) is divided into two 4-bit fields. This expands the addressing of the existing IPv4 Internet by a factor of 16, with no change to the existing infrastructure. Those same 4 bits then carry over into IPv8 and IPv16 Addressing. The 2,048 address blocks freely allocated to IPv8 as shown below, are actually each much larger than the existing IPv4 address space, which needs to be replaced because of the poor management of the resource and the unfair allocation policies. Jim Fleming http://www.in-addr.info 3:219 INFO http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
