oh

[Christopher Evans]

was I suppose to send that to majordomo?


-ttyl,
--chris 
DigitalAtoll BBS & Webhosting 
http://digitalatoll.flnet.org/
Multi-Platform FTP - POP3 - SMTP
Competively priced!

RE: Conference MIB

[Christopher Evans]

MIB = Managed Information Base I think...



At 05:22 PM 1/2/02 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>I am not aware of such a thing in the IETF.
>But then... I am not sure what exactly you mean with a "Conference MIB".
>
>Bert 
>

Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned

[Christopher Evans]

Enginneering and computer science disipline are a joke. It seems ppl in
these feilds all about ego and no documentation or worse terse confusing 
documentation. (eg rfcs)  cut the crap and do something usefull. 

And yes, I am not helping here.. 


At 08:36 PM 1/6/02 -0600, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
>> To: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned
>> 
>> At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote:
>> >I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list.  It returned 
>> >THREE to me.  If everyone else got 3, my apologies.  If anyone can 
>> >inform me as to what happened i'd appreciate it.
>> 
>> Er, a better question is why you spammed the IETF list at all.
>
>Oh, please.  Compared to what?  Megabytes of viruses?  Long discussions
>about whether viruses should be filtered from the IETF mail list?
>Long discussions about whether IETF mail lists should accept e-mail
>only from subscribers?  Repeated tirades against address translation?
>
>While Gordon is regularly fairly confused, he sometimes does provide
>a few interesting tidbits in his infrequent postings.  The information
>content of his postings probably ranks at least average for IETF postings
>(I am sorry to say).
>
>It seems to me that Gordon's postings are the least of the challenges
>faced by the IETF mail list.
>
>-tjs
>
>

Re: Empowering the Customer or Empowering the Telco - State of the Internet 2002 (abridged) Published annually to the IETF list

[Christopher Evans]

Yes. but are these companies on each side understaffed or mismanaged?

BLaH, BLaH, BLaH.  YaDDaBLaH, BLaH BLaH.  MumBo JumBo, JumBo MumBo.
oBMuM, oBMuJ.

_\\\__\\/_
  o-o o-o
   C--+~   u

At 04:24 PM 1/6/02 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Empowering the Customer or
>Empowering the Telco
>
>State of the Internet 2002:  Assessing the Technical, Economic and 
>Policy Consequences Behind the Collapse of 2001
>
>
>In its examination of the impact of Internet technology on global 
>telecommunications during 2001, this report will bring into focus 
>changes that are reshaping one of the world's largest and most 

Re: Syntax... Re: Bandwidth? BANDWIDTH. We don't need no stinking bandwidth

[Christopher Evans]

yes.

if pos('',s)>=i then ignoredata:=1 else 
if pos('',s)>=i then ignoredata:=0;

At 10:46 AM 1/22/02 +1100, grenville armitage wrote:
>
>> (That's what Multi Protocol Labeling Switching is for!)
>
>Shouldn't references to MPLS be surrounded by  ...  tags?
>
>cheers,
>gja
>
>

Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification

[Christopher Evans]

Hrm,

SoUL = Software Underwriters Laboratories

but I thought the UL was a distinct company in it self that other companies
send stuff to for testing.
So some one withe means and clout in the industy needs to take it up.

Suppose could put of a website like http://www.underwriters.org... hrm
www.sul.org

and gear it as a contact point for software testing.


At 10:08 AM 1/23/02 -0600, Alex Audu wrote:
>Great idea, but you also should not leave out the issue of compliance
testing.
>May be an organization like
>the Underwriters Laboratories,..or some other newly formed group
>(opportunity,.. anyone?) could take
>up the role of compliance testing.
>
>Regards,
>Alex.
>
>
>Franck Martin wrote:
>
>> I support the idea, what needs to be done is the IETF to come with a
>> trademark and someone to Inform the ISOC about all this discussion and also
>> to register this trademark...
>>
>> Lynn, Could you please read this thread from the IETF archives, it could be
>> interesting for the development of ISOC/IETF.
>>
>> Franck Martin
>> Network and Database Development Officer
>> SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
>> Fiji
>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> Web site: http://www.sopac.org/
>>  Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/
>> 
>>
>> This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail
>> without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily
>> the views of SOPAC.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kyle Lussier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2002 4:04
>> To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
>>
>> We need stronger enforcement of the RFC's, and we need creative
>> thinking as to how to go about that.  I like the idea of an easy
>> in "IETF Certified" trademark, if you abuse it, it can be revoked,
>> and then vendors building contracts around supporting IETF Certified
>> products.
>>
>> It gives CIOs something to rattle about as well.  I.e., they
>> can require IETF Certification of products, which guarantees them
>> standards support, as enforced by the IETF community.
>>
>> Just a simple precise trademark construct, with an "easy-in"
>> application that costs maybe $100 per product, and supported
>> by the IETF.  That certification could be revoked down the road.
>>
>> IETF doesn't have to be a conformance body or litigator.  It just
>> merely needs to be the bearer of the "one true mark" :).
>>
>> Kyle Lussier
>> AutoNOC LLC
>
>

Re: OK... we thought we were running out of IPv4 address space *before*..

[Christopher Evans]

I have that. it is called a plastic case with little sub divisions for
every different little lego peice. 8)

Why a NetMicroWave?  so THEY can see you roast when its sealant fail?

And a netFridge... why would you wanna look at my moldy bread slice?!?
(yes, I did leave it in too long. :( )

What they need to make is a NetGlove or sumthing, carry your PDA on
your arm like a watch or replaces the watch.  no losing it or sitting on it
in your backpocket. (I havent dont that, but I know someone that did) 

hrm, netballs... n/m 


At 12:38 PM 1/30/02 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>> OK.. TCP/IP in a refrigerator... a microwave... maybe.  But Lego Blocks?
>
>just wait until you see the Lego Block MIB.
>
>

Re: Simple question

[Christopher Evans]

When R1 sends pkts at and they are timeout on reponse?  It'll have to walk
its tables to find an alternative
party to crash. 

At 10:54 AM 2/13/02 -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>Thus spake "Ali Boudani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> If we have the following figure:
>>
>> R1-R2-R3-R4 where R1 to R4 are unicast routers.
>> R1 is sending packets to R4. If R4 goes down, when R1 will detect this??
>> Before sending packets or after?
>
>Your question presupposes that R1 is somehow aware of R4.  If you can answer
>how that is, you will know if/when R1 will detect a subsequent failure.
>
>S
>
>
>

Re: PPP

[Christopher Evans]

I kinda working on my own tcp/ip lib  and this is how I interprete it.

Your dumb terminal scripter makes connection

that activates PPP (with LCP confsync)

if that get an IP and return good then you can splat (encapulate)
IP/TCP/UDP packets 
out the line

er. and I must warn you I havnt got a working version so dont listen to me,
I am a techno moron.

Why do they call it TCP/IP  ?   that sound reversed. it should be
IP/TCP-UDP   as that makes sense in 
my head.


At 02:25 AM 3/1/02 -0500, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>I have received several responses and most people say it's in the data
>layer, and a couple of people think it's in the network layer. I don't
>really pay much attention to the OSI model, I think it complicates the
>complicated. I try to focus more on TCP/IP. Does PPP establish a link, then
>terminate, or continue throughout session in UDP and TCP? I posted this
>question on the PPP mailing list with less familiaritive response than ietf
>general list.
>- Original Message -
>From: "Brian Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Bill Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:52 AM
>Subject: Re: PPP
>
>
>> At 03:55 AM 2/28/2002, you wrote:
>> >In what layer is PPP in the TCP/IP suite?
>>
>> I have read some of the other responses and it reinforces my belief that
>> most people don't understand PPP's relationship to IP and either the
>> 5-layer (internet) or 7-layer (ISO) models.
>>
>> PPP is really both the link and lower network layers. (The ISORMites
>> discovered that layer three was really several layers in itself but found
>> it difficult to say that the 7-layer model was really a 9-layer model so
>> they created sublayers, i.e. layers 3A, 3B, and 3C.  Something about
>> Padlipsky comes to mind here.) The best way to think of PPP is a
>degenerate
>> network of two nodes, not a link between two devices.  If you think of it
>> in this way, things like multilink and L2TP begin to make some sense.  The
>> problem occurs when people forget this.
>>
>> The way that I think of it is that the LCP negotiation represents
>> configuration of the link layer while the NCP negotiation configuration at
>> the network layer.
>>
>> And I continue to kick myself for allowing negotiation of multilink as
>part
>> of LCP instead of doing it after authentication.  I fear that this helped
>> screw up L2TP too.  I admit I caved to people who were worried about how
>> long it took PPP to complete negotiation, something that just isn't very
>> important.
>>
>>
>> Brian Lloyd
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> +1.530.676.1113 - voice
>> +1.360.838.9669 - fax
>>
>
>

RE: y'all crack me up

[Christopher Evans]

woof, woof!looks like the old fidonet days.

At 06:04 PM 2/28/02 -0500, Julia Finnegan wrote:
>Wooo hooo!  Finally some action in this place... Right on.
>
>*Julia*
>
> -Original Message-
>From:  Michael Allen Gelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>Sent:  Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:13 PM
>To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:   y'all crack me up
>
>When I wrote to the IETF, it was to have a "voice," in the event that 
>Vernon Schryver has some input with regard to how things are done in the 
>future.  It certainly would be a huge injustice if this individual causes 
>problems for small business operators for no valid reason.  I had no idea 
>my mail would become public, since I don't spend a lot of time on the 
>Web.  I have never subscribed to your mailing list.
>
>IETF did the same thing old Vernon did -- publicly post a private 
>email.  You *know* what is wrong with that.  Out the other sides of your 
>asses you tell people about "Netiquette," don't you.  Dweebs!
>
>I am really amused.
>
>I am really surprised at how juvenile and hateful some of you are.  I have 
>rec'd messages from about a dozen of you, calling me names and hurling 
>false accusations at me.  When I reply, my mail is returned.
>
>Several of you are "grasping at straws" to try to find some wrong doing 
>that I have done.  The fact is that I am a small business owner with high 
>moral standards of honesty and treatment of my fellow human beings.  I 
>don't spam and I don't aid spammers.  I don't speculate on domain 
>names.  My services have strict anti-abuse policies that, in one case, 
>carries a monetary penalty.  I cancel some accounts on the first complaint.
>
>Go ahead and write to me using acronyms you know I won't understand.  Hell, 
>one guy doesn't even know the meaning of "ironic."  Listening to Alanis 
>Morisette music?  She doesn't understand that word, either.  If you can't 
>understand in English, so be it.
>
>The fact is that you folks are losers and you're not too bright.  I don't 
>care how good you are at writing code and doing math -- you're 
>losers.  Y'all crack me up.
>
>I have a nice house, lots of money, a hot girlfriend, and I enjoy it all 
>immensely.  I also have the ability to imagine and create new things.  Go 
>ahead and hate me -- I can't say I blame you.
>
>I'm having sex with a beautiful woman and making money while not hurting 
>anyone in any way.  Have fun masturbating and writing abusive mail to a man 
>who would teach you some respect, but as you know, can't reach you right
>now.
>
>- Mike
>
>someone wrote:
>>are you claiming that domain speculation is a legitimate business?
>>or for that matter, that NetSol is a legitimate business?
>>
>>as far as I'm concerned, they're both lower on the food chain than
>spammers.
>
>
>

Re: PPP

[Christopher Evans]

Here is a question that will tax your synapes to bursting point!

How is PPP and TCP/IP libs "wired" together?  Like, DO I (OSI 8) call TCP
and it calls IP and down the 
chain till it spills over and gets real physical (OSI 1)? I am confused.


At 10:02 AM 3/5/02 -0500, you wrote:
>whoa, it's in the TCP/IP suite, it's not. So let me get this straight. TCP
>and UDP are part of IP. TCP provides error sum UDP doesn't and is therefore
>faster than TCP. They are encapsulated in IP, which is put into the data
>bitstream of a PPP frame. Layer 1 is the physical layer, are bitstreams sent
>at that level. BTW I have 56K dial-up no ISDN or DSL.
>- Original Message -
>

Re: Guidance for spam-control on IETF mailing lists

[Christopher Evans]

Evil[1] is always the manipulator of good ideas. Evil[1] will fill the
greater good, if we do not 
act now. by act now I do not want a whitelist that is "publicly" maintained. 

-Wonko the Sane

[1]=U.C.E.

At 07:11 PM 3/16/02 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>> And if I'm going to read a list, I'd
>> much rather it be well run than just easy to post to. I define well
>> run as _both_ spam-free and lacking in moderation delays.
>
>I define "well run" as having a high signal-to-noise ratio,
>low moderation delay, a well-defined moderation policy that 
>evaluates messages visibly and impartially without considering 
>who authored them, and a low barrier to successful posting 
>of relevant content - even by non-subscribers.
>
>Expecting contributors to explicitly add their addresses to 
>a whitelist using obscure knowledge that is specific to 
>a particular list or software or moderator, and completely
>unrelated to the knowledge required to contribute to the list,
>imposes an unacceptably high barrier.
>
>But if we somehow made this process uniform from one list to 
>another, spammers would just add themselves to the whitelist.
>
>Keith
>
>p.s. though it is intriguing to consider - what if the instructions 
>for commenting on a draft were embedded somewhere within that
>draft, so people would actually have to read it before commenting? 
>
>

RE: Outlook Express

[Christopher Evans]

Eh!?  I am confusedmy LinkSys router is not accessable from the
win98 machine, but my dos/win3.11 machine get to it just fine.  same
segment, subnet, and ip ranges 10.x.x.x  but IE5 goes and whines about not
able to open search page when i type in http://192.168.1.1/  damn, if i
dont ge it by 4pm I gotta to study for cisco.

At 12:49 PM 4/15/02 +0200, TOMSON ERIC wrote:
>Billc880,
>
>May I suggest you to read the following (source:
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html):
>
>The IETF discussion list serves two purposes. It furthers the development
and specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical
issues. It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, and
procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable
latitude is allowed. Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote
employment opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable
topics, as do discussions of a personal nature. 
>
>This list is meant for initial discussion only. Discussions that fall
within the area of any working group or well established list should be
moved to such more specific forum as soon as this is pointed out, unless
the issue is one for which the working group needs wider input or direction. 
>
>In addition to the topics noted above, appropriate postings include: 
>
>Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions 
>Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work, but do
not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue 
>Discussion of IETF administrative policies 
>Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings. 
>Inappropriate postings include: 
>
>Unsolicited bulk e-mail 
>Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or
technical concerns 
>Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject. 
>The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person or of a
thread as they deem appropriate to limit abuse. Complaints regarding their
decisions should be referred to the IAB. 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: vendredi 12 avril 2002 5:20
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Outlook Express
>
>Is there any way you can set outlook express as a mail client for AOL? I'd 
>much rather use it than AOL's prefabricated mail so called server.
>
>

Re: TCP/IP Terms

[Christopher Evans]

I passed my midterm today, so let me give it a try.. 

LAYER 7 - APPLICATION - Your data manipulation applications :)
LAYER 6 - PRESENTATION - compression, encryption, char translation
LAYER 5 - SESSION  - your connection manager interface (i.e. BSD sockets)
LAYER 4 - TRANSPORT- data segmentation, with checksums
LAYER 3 - NETWORK  - Addressing (i.e. routing, routers.. or i like "rooters")
LAYER 2 - DATALINK - Bit-oriented encapsulation frames
LAYER 1 - PHYSICAL - .,';,.ELECTRICAL SIGNALS.,';,.

Segments are LAYER 4. Packets are LAYER 3. Frames are, duh, LAYER 2. 

Segments : also called PDUs, Protocol Data Units, a grouping of data gtom layers 
7,6, & 5 and provides reliability and error correction for transfer. 

--chris



9/27/02 3:49:32 PM, "Bill Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Vint,
>Some of us at IETF are thinking about a draft to clear up some
>terminology about the different layers of TCP/IP.
>Whether it be packet, datagram, segement (more clearly defined) or whatever
>the case. Do you have any opinions on this?
>
>

Re: TCP/IP Terms

[Christopher Evans]

datagram is confuse..   well best i understand is the whole stack layers all rolled 
into one logical grouping.


9/27/02 3:49:32 PM, "Bill Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Vint,
>Some of us at IETF are thinking about a draft to clear up some
>terminology about the different layers of TCP/IP.
>Whether it be packet, datagram, segement (more clearly defined) or whatever
>the case. Do you have any opinions on this?
>
>

Re: RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)

[Christopher Evans]

.net is a suite of coding & publishing tools.  maybe should throw together a .org 
suite of freeware coding tools?  


10/29/02 2:54:02 AM, "Sean Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Good Morning  Valdis
>I have been cogitating on this for a little while. (Especially as I didn't want to 
sound thick when replying)
>
>Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when one 
will suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net & etc In short 
the Microsoft-verse.

Re: Palladium (TCP/MS)

[Christopher Evans]

Wha? they go outlaw windows?  Shareholders wont do non of that in realm of 
lawsuits because M$ & the media done a good job at brain neutering the masses and 
furthering intellectual ejemity in the schools. Damn, I taking cis-2 and they 
concentrate in M$ details of operation and not on raw talent,  teacher go ding 
you in the grade dept. if your comment block is not just so perfect... shit.

--chris

11/1/02 7:15:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:10:59 EST, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
>> Sean Jones wrote:
>> >I understand where I went wrong. But I doubt that any commercial enterprise 
would want to block access to MS servers in RL.
>> Well, it'd be a good way to inhibit people from sneaking Windows into 
>> the company.
>
>And in addition, not all the net is a "commercial enterprise".  There's a very
>large worldwide presence in the gov/edu/org arenas - and a *LOT* of those
>organizations have political, philosophical, or other reasons for blocking
>Microsoft.  I'm sure there's privately held companies that can afford to have
>similar views - and I'm waiting for a shareholder suit against the board of a
>publicly held company for decreasing profits by continuing to permit the use a
>certain MUA even though it's one of the leading causes of virus and worm
>propagation...
>
>-- 
>   Valdis Kletnieks
>   Computer Systems Senior Engineer
>   Virginia Tech
>
>