Re: Printing Internet Drafts
For what its worth, and maybe its just that I haven't mucked around with the standard templates for MS Word, but I print ID's and RFC's through MS Word by adjusting page setup. If you open the plain text ID text document and set the page setup to 0.9 top margin and 0.8 bottom margin, it should be fine. You can verify this by switching the view to Print Layout from the View menu. For an RFC document, use 0.9 top and 0.9 bottom as they are apparently different. At least this works for me, Office 2K on Win 2K. YMMV. -Kevin __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
There are all sorts of ways IP addresses can be shared by multiple machines which you may or may not choose to use. Not if you are running pure IP. Either you can uniquely identify each machine, or you can't, but you cannot have it both ways. What about NAT? __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
I apologize for asking, but... I have been reading the ietf-opes.org pages again and I still can't get a good hold on what OPES is trying to accomplish. There are a lot of drafts listed on the site that discuss several scenarios like content peering, edge caching, etc., and while that's all nice and everything, someone please tell me why OPES is trying to lump all of this stuff together. Would an OPES-proponent please illustrate the advantage of OPES with 1 or 2 example services that are not already in existence today (meaning not edge caching and not distributed content servers) that would benefit end users? -Kevin __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
I believe OPES-like services are already creeping in. Consider wireless systems where a great deal of compression is employed to reduce data streams. This includes proprietary mechanisms to re-publish graphics and web pages to reduce bandwidth requirements. However, in such systems where the wireless connection is (arguably) a single link, usually with many other standards bodies involved, such as 3GPP2 and WCDMA. This would mean there are mechanisms in place to standardize the captive audience such as for cellular data users. But from what I have read on the OPES web site, it appears that ANY intermediary system could inject, modify, substitute, or restrict the flow of information from one end-point to another. While I am no purist on the end-to-end issues raised in this forum, I do see a VERY dangerous path ahead where an intermediate system could restrict competitor's information, or extract information about users in much more alarming and intrusive ways then ever before. And if you consider the following from the Example Services for Network Edge Proxies given on the OPES site: With the help of a content scanning and filtering system at the caching proxy level, Web pages and also file transfers could be scanned for malicious content prior to sending them to the user. I would therefore argue, using the above logic, that we would need a new service to probe the route looking for malicious intermediaries and find a new routing path around them. Any WG considering OPES needs to address not only security, but also privacy, and author/publisher rights as well. While it could be conceivable that there is a justfiable need for OPES, it would have to be an EXPLICIT invocation by the user or author. A web page author may choose to write their web pages to be open to OPES, and a user may set security levels to allow OPES functions on their behalf. It is IMHO that allowing intermedate devices to alter traffic content without user knowledge, violates a basic element of the fabric of the Internet and destroys what miniscule remaining trust users have in the Internet in general. Just an opinion, YMMV. -kevin __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
Re: Mailing list policy
--- John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Farley wrote: --- John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today, if you want to spam all of them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. (I spoke sloppily, by the way. For today, read with separate filters on every list.) Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be automated. If that's so, then subscriber filters won't work; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, the spamware vendors will include automated subscription features. Exactly. Someone will realize how to make a profit of both sides of the issue. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs
I think I might set a filter to look for this thread in the subject line of my email and dump it. It only takes a minute to set it up. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Mailing list policy
--- John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Richardson wrote: This list of lists, alas, would become a spammer/head-hunter target if made too easily accessible, but we already have that problem. In addition, it would mean that anybody subscribed to one IETF list could spam all of them, which would weaken the protection. Today, if you want to spam all of them, you have to subscribe to all of them, which is impractical. Impractical, but through software, not impossible. Could readily be automated. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Not developing protocols
IMHO, a successful WG is one whereby it has been successful been adopted and used by the industry. -James Seng Like NAT? __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1)
The host *is* the edge of the network. I'm sorry to have not mentioned that I consider the host nodes, or the end nodes, are not edges but instead something attaching on network edges. I consider the very last hub, or the access router which the end nodes connected to as the 'network edge'. So there's no network between me and another computer on the same unswitched Ethernet? So you think your PC is the edge of the Internet? __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: NAT ... again
First I have to say that this thread has been an amusing source of analogies (some from myself). I laughed... I cried... it has to be a best seller. I now ask the question again: if NAT stinks, where's the air freshener? And the corollary question: if IPv6 is the answer, where's the beef? Kevin Farley __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: solution to NAT and multihoming
Keith, Ed, others... I have been following this entire line of discussion with some amusement and some frustration. I would like to share a couple of humble thoughts on this subject from my own perspective. - yes, NAT in general restricts the applications and/or protocols that can be accessed by users behind the NAT. - yes, having NAT devices deployed will impede development of new protocols and applications that rely on embedding IP addresses. - yes, NAT can be cumbersome in its sustained management as sys admins must punch holes through their various NAT devices to allow a particular application/protocol through. - yes, NAT does violate the global addressibility of Internet hosts. - yes, we could eliminate NAT by giving everyone a globally unique IP address. - no, not everyone wants to run every conceivable application/protocol to their client machines, they are happy with the subset they chose. - no, protocol developers cannot go off developing new protocols that do not consider implications with NAT deployment. - no, not all NAT implementations prevent the use of punch-throughs allowing unique or custom protocols to still work. - no, not everyone wants to participate in the great global address space of the Internet, they just want to access Internet-connected devices. - no, as a mere mortal user, I cannot always obtain real IP addresses as the ISPs claim they must justify IP address assignment and hold them close to their vest pocket. Considering my own company and the plethora of IP-addressed devices, and yes we sit behind NAT and yes I can do nearly all applications and protocols as one can who is not behind a NAT, many of these devices are lab tools that only need connectivity back to an engineer's desk or a shared printer. I don't really need access to a JTAG emulator pod from across the ocean, it just doesn't make sense for my purposes. Given the argument that NAT restricts the available applications and/or protocols, a potential buyer of the device must then choose the one that meets his or her requirements. Since the more restrictive devices will most likely be purchased less and less, and the "better" devices will prevail, will it not be expected that the NAT implementations will improve over time in a manner similar to a farmer improving his crops year after year by only planting the hardiest varieties? So when it comes to buying NAT devices, "buyer beware" should be the mantra of the day. And now the question(s) of the day: What is the solution that can be deployed today or in the next 6 months that will replace the function of NATs in the IPv4 Internet? What about in the next year? 2 years? Respectfully, Kevin Farley __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: solution to NAT and multihoming
Keith, Thank you for your insightful response to my posting. Is it fair to say then, that in the year 2001, there appears to be no widely deployable alternative to NAT? Kevin --- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, I don't disagree with most of your assertions, except perhaps one or two. Here's the gap in a nutshell: The fact that NATs are widely deployed means that several quite useful applications are having great difficulty being deployed. You may not think you want to participate in the great global address space, but you might not realize what you're missing as the result of the inability to do so. The market has very limited foresight, which means that it can run into dead ends. The potential market for applications in an IPv6 Internet is far greater than that for a NATted IPv4 Internet, but that doesn't mean that market forces alone will bring about adoption of IPv6. And now the question(s) of the day: What is the solution that can be deployed today or in the next 6 months that will replace the function of NATs in the IPv4 Internet? What about in the next year? 2 years? you can't replace NATs in the v4 Internet. you can however provide new functionality that will allow deployment of applications that won't work in a NATted v4 Internet. - 6to4 lets you tunnel v6 over the existing v4 internet - a IPv6 over UDP tunneling scheme would let you transmit IPv6 over your NATted v4 private network until it got upgraded to transmit v6 natively - extensions to PPP and/or DHCP to request blocks of addresses (rather than just a single address) would allow implementation of the "plug a network anywhere into the network" feature of NATs without actually resorting to address translation - renumbering still needs a considerable amount of work. perhaps we need extensions to routing protocols to advertise upcoming renumbering events (new prefixes become valid in seconds; old prefixes become invalid in seconds, with some reasonable time between the two), with similar extensions to DHCP and to the APIs used by applications. this could all be deployable in 2 years, but the last bit would be tight. the rest could be done much sooner. Keith __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
--- Sean Doran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith Moore writes: | but I'm fairly convinced that we are *far* better off with a global | name space for network attachment points, which are exposed and | visible to hosts and applications, than we are with only locally | scoped addresses visible to hosts and applications Out of curiosity, do you (as a hosts and applications person) really care what is in use in the network(s) between the network attachment points in question, if the edges of the network all have the properties in your lines above? Sean. You know, concerns over global name spaces and architectural purity are valid to the engineer/operator. But to Joe User who just got his first cable modem and got rid of AOL, he just wants to connect his computer to the Internet. Then he wants to share that connection with his kids' computer and their $50 e-bay printer server. That's why so many of the little NAT gadgets are sold. Because Joe User doesn't want to shell out extra bucks for more IP addresses and Joe User needs simplicity. Also _most_ average users just want to browse the web, get their email, download software, and maybe exchange music files. It is up to the networking professionals to make sure Big Company X and Big Company Y connect when and where they have to. But its up to Joe User to manage his home network. Lets try to at least make that simple for Mr. and Mrs. Joe User. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
How does the idea of NAT destroy the global Internet address space? because in a NATted network the same addresses are used in different parts of the network. addresses are meaningless. So what? Why is this the big problem? __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
