RE: power in Korea..
FWIW, I'm roaming with my U.S. ATT (AWS) SIM just fine here in Seoul. It took less than 5 minutes to pick up the phone at the airport with a pre-reservation. At 04:36 PM 2/27/2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote: t-mobile usa doesn't appear to have a roaming agreement with anyone. t-mobile germany has one with sk-telecom... It really continues to annoy me that the US carries can continue to bung up international roaming like they do. joelja On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Adam Roach wrote: -Original Message- From: Aaron Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Has anybody tried this kind of trick (putting the SIM in another phone) with a T-mobile sim? I know that T-mobile binds the phone to the sim but don't know if they bind the sim to the phone. --aaron As of three years ago, they did not. On the other hand, my research so far has failed to turn up a roaming partner for T-Mobile USA in Korea, so I don't think it will do much good. /a -- -- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Re: power in Korea..
At 04:59 PM 2/25/2004, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Quick answer: Euro-style round-pin plugs Long answer: The official Korean plug is 4.8 mm in diameter whereas the Euro-plug is 4.0 mm. This means you *could* encounter some loose connections unless you use the European *grounded* plug which *is* 4.8 mm also. Apple users get both a Euro plug and a Korean plug in the world-wide plug kit for the white power bricks. Springloaded adapters such as the Sascom and Gocom are good alternatives. I am shocked that the IETF didn't rewire downtown Seoul to accommodate our conference! The next thing we'll hear is that our TDMA phones won't work. Or that they don't have TGI Friday's within easy walking distance. :-)
Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational
No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or working documents. If I stand up (physically or virtually) in an IETF meeting and say the ITU-T is doing such and such, you can either believe me or double check with the ITU. But the benefit remains that I stood up and brought your attention to the topic. I don't need to be an authorized ITU-T representative to do that. And I'll double check anything an authorized ITU-T representative says as well. So I don't see any benefit to this provision. At 12:29 AM 3/6/2002, Amardeo Sarma wrote: .. the intention as I see it is to ensure that no misunderstandings arise because someone claims something is an ITU-T view when in fact it is not. I believe it is of high value to all sides to know when someone is stating his or her personal view, and when someone is giving reliable information about the status in an entity of an organisation. The same is of course of great value in the reverse direction. Amardeo Sarma, also ITU-T SG17 Co-Chair Quoting Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 3/5/02 at 1:22 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: 3.2.2 ITU-T recognition at ISOC/IETF ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking authoritatively on behalf of the Study Group (or a particular Rapporteur Group). I think it needs to be explicitly said that the opinions stated by such representatives are for information of the WG only and are not considered in determining WG consensus. I agree. The purpose of the liaison should be to keep the IETF informed about the goings-on of the ITU. Insofar as the actions of any other standards or commercial organization might have a significant impact on the decisions of the working group (e.g., knowledge that a particular company has IPR, or that another standards organization is deploying something that would conflict with a WG proposal), having an official representative of the ITU bring that information is fine. That's very much the same as when an area director, with their area director hat on, gives a WG guidance like, The IESG is not going to let that document through without mentioning security. However, like the AD, the ITU delegate should have no more weight on consensus decisions than anyone else in the working group. I'm very much with Keith that this needs to be spelled out in this section. pr -- Pete Resnick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 Amardeo Sarma NEC Network Laboratories [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational
At 10:36 AM 3/6/2002, John Stracke wrote: No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or working documents. (a) The publicly available working documents may not be up-to-date. They are up to date for ITU-T members. (b) Most of the ITU's publicly available documents are not free. They are available to ITU-T members. If you are not an ITU-T member, then you have no direct ability to tell if someone is giving you the straight scoop even if they are authorized.
Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representative of the real world
At 05:41 AM 8/9/2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: I liked Tony Hain's suggestion that the future IETF terminal room/ wireless LAN ntworks should offer NATted IPv4 and plain IPv6, to better reflect the choices available to much of the world. i wish i could agree that they are, but the transition plan seems to have a lot of nats in it. sigh you should better practice using before IETF54 (Yokohama Japan), as we may deploy IPv6-only terminal cluster :-):-):-) seriously, with the address allocation policy/status in JP I guess IETF54 term room may have to use IPv4 NAT or something alike. If you use IPv6, you should be safe. So it's better to prepare today than tomorrow. For many or most of us, it's not a matter of our preparation. Rather it is the matter of infrastructure support for IPv6. Until our corporate and ISP and operating system and application infrastructures support IPv6, we unfortunately must remain IPv4 users. So I humbly request that all IETF meetings support NAT-free pure IPv4 networks for use by IETF attendees. Pure IPv6 networks would be good too!
Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representative of the real world
At 08:14 AM 8/9/2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: For many or most of us, it's not a matter of our preparation. Rather it is the matter of infrastructure support for IPv6. Until our corporate and ISP and operating system and application infrastructures support IPv6, we unfortunately must remain IPv4 users. So I humbly request that all IETF meetings support NAT-free pure IPv4 networks for use by IETF attendees. Pure IPv6 networks would be good too! 1. so, try to support IPv6 in your corporate network as well as your email server sooner than later. 2. use IPv6-to-IPv4 translator, supposedly available at the venue (your laptop = IPv6, corporate = IPv4). I don't think too many CEO's come to the IETF, so we can't force our companies to move to IPv6. This is especially true in large companies. And if our companies or jobs require us to use applications and OS's that do not support IPv6, then we cannot yet make the change on our laptops.
Re: IETF network VPNs
At 01:53 PM 8/9/2001, RJ Atkinson wrote: At 14:20 09/08/01, Matt Holdrege wrote: Wrong! Most IETF'ers I know tunnel back to their home offices. I personally use an IPsec/IKE implementation that doesn't care much for NAT. If the remote ESP tunnel endpoint (and IKE KM endpoint) is on the external interface of a box that is also performing NAT on the inside interface, there just isn't a problem. Lots of the economical gateway/firewall/encryptor widgets work this way. This approach actually works quite well, particularly if one's employer has an internal network using private address space. Yes but this would be ESP/IKE IPv4 laptops running through whatever NAT would be provided by the local IETF host through the Internet and to the corporate network. It doesn't matter that the corporate firewall/IPsec endpoint does NAT unless of course both sides use the same address range (that would not be nice).
Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs
At 05:59 AM 5/23/2001, Keith Moore wrote: What about months of work wasted because a WG didn't get the input of those driven away by spam? that's equally as bad as the months of work wasted because the WG didn't get the input of someone driven away by the spam filter, of course. Keith, there are several barriers of entry for people who wish to work on Internet protocols. There are financial barriers, time barriers and most of all, educational barriers. We all have to learn how email lists work (some of us had to learn USENET), just as we all had to learn how to access the Internet. It is incumbent on the participant to move up the learning curve and follow the email list policy even if that includes extra effort. If that policy includes subscription, then you just have to go along with it, onerous or not. The Internet doesn't bend to individuals.
Re: Deja Vu
At 07:18 AM 3/29/2001, Randy Bush wrote: when will you be hosting? I've done it 1.5 times myself. How about you? 2002, i believe. working on it now. Good for you. I should mention that the one I hosted was a heck of a lot of work. One of the results was that I now have a awful lot of respect for the IETF Secretariat (Marcia, Steve, Julie gang). As such I trust their site planning totally. They take into account the extremely diverse needs of the IETF which is a nearly impossible task. As someone who has hosted a recent IETF, I vote for keeping the status quo. You can't please everyone, but the IETF is doing a pretty good job so far.
Re: Deja Vu
At 07:32 PM 3/28/2001, Randy Bush wrote: So Ole, Cisco will be hosting an IETF there when? i think they co-hosted with qualcomm in san diego justthe other month. when will you be hosting? I've done it 1.5 times myself. How about you? P.S., it was a joke Randy.
Re: Deja Vu
To give Baree and other who didn't attend Minneapolis an idea, the main hotel (Hilton) has hundreds of rooms and the IETF cost was $129 per night. Surrounding the main hotel within a short walk are other hotels totalling over 1500 rooms. In the Minneapolis Hilton we had thousands of square feet of meeting rooms and the main ballroom held over 1200 people. Outside the meeting rooms the hallways were wide enough to drive a tractor-trailer through. So when you suggest your favorite city/hotel, try to keep the above figures in mind. Anything smaller or significantly more expensive will be criticized. At 10:26 AM 3/28/2001, Baree Sunnyasi wrote: Could we have an idea of how much did a participant spend in Minneapolis ? I live in Mauritius and I am sure we could find a very good hotel over here at much lower prices than in Europe or America. We are bilingual (English and French) so communication will hardly be a problem. The weather is lovely throughout the year except for a few weeks in Summer. The Govt of Mauritius is working seriously on a Cybercity project which is quite likely to materialise in a few months and if approached would certainly help in finding a host. Baree -Original Message- From: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Deja Vu with air fares as illogical as they are, it isn't even a cost issue. The cost thing is, I think, misleading. Having had the experience of having to go to many ETSI meetings, I've found that apart from a few incredibly expensive cities it's generally cheaper to go to Europe than it is to travel in the US. Airfares really are not that much more expensive (and can be about the same during the winter and spring) and hotels and food tend to be less expensive. Plus, there's that strong-American-dollar thing (for the moment ...). The drawbacks are that it tends to look to the beancounters like a junket, and for those originating in the US and travelling west to east morning sessions can be pretty painful. Melinda - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Maurizio Codogno.
Re: Deja Vu
Let's see, the price is right, the convention center has plenty of room, there are loads of hotel rooms nearby. Hmm. Sounds great! So Ole, Cisco will be hosting an IETF there when? At 05:41 PM 3/28/2001, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote: OK, I'll bite: Kuala Lumpur which we just used for APRICOT 2001. Five-star hotel, the Pan Pacific $63 per night. Pay $93 and you're on the Executive floor with free breakfast, etc. The hotel is next to a convention center. Food was very inexpensive, with the exception of alcohol (Muslim country so you'd sort of expect that). Even the one-hour limo ride to the airport was only $35. Getting to and from KL is no worse than any other major Asian city. Temperature stable, tropical. Internet infrastructure pretty good. 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
Re: Deja Vu
At 03:14 PM 3/20/2001, Phil Karn wrote: What's really ironic in your mentioning this (in a deju vu thread) is that the Dow first hit and closed above 10,000 when we were here in 1999. I remember watching for it on (probably) the same sign. Gee, you noticed this too, huh? As for the "US-centric" accusations, I have no problem with holding the IETF in various countries around the world. But when it *is* held in the US, adequate facilities should be selected. In all the years I've been attending the IETF (too many), the Minneapolis Hilton has the best facilities, best sized rooms, most cookies and pops, and the best run meetings of the bunch. Who cares what the temperature outside is?
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
At 08:53 AM 1/22/2001, Henning G. Schulzrinne wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: The ISOC isn't a trade association, which is where such seals of approval (and the associated b*ke-offs) tend to come from. Maybe the IPv6 consortium or whatever they call themselves could do this, since IPv6 is a (the only?) realistic alternative to NATs. Long term, yes. But Class A addresses for all the always-on users today would eliminate a heck of a lot of NAT out there. And I wasn't referring to a "seal-of-approval". Just some sort of formal recognition.
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
At 05:39 PM 1/21/2001, Keith Moore wrote: NAT is an architecturally bankrupt strategy - the more you try to fix it, the more complex the architecture becomes, the harder it becomes to write and configure applications, and the the more brittle the network becomes. There is no way to fix the problems created by NAT without a global name space for points in the network topology, and this is the thing that NAT fundamentally destroys. I agree with that, but see no other alternative (other than waiting for IPv6) than improving communication through NAT piece by piece. The best way to improve communication through NAT is for the NAT boxes to support IPv6 routing and 6to4. The IETF has done it's job with 6to4, but like you said we can't force people to deploy it. But let's stop and think about 6to4. Aren't some of the same "tricks" or ALG's that are planned to make applications work with IPv4 NAT, applicable to 6to4? If so, then we must find solutions now since 6to4 could be with us for many years.
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
At 11:47 AM 1/21/2001, Daniel Senie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's stamp out NAT, *now* - before it becomes too entrenched and we can never get rid of it. We don't need that sort of "worked" again. Ummm, it's FAR too late for that. As for numbers of users, it's my guess a large percentage of the cable modem users and DSL users are running NAPT boxes. Speaking of DSL and NAT, I think we should give credit where credit is due and thank Verizon for handing out public Class A addresses to their legions of DSL users. If we credit them enough, three things may happen. First of all they will stay with this scheme and never use NAT. Secondly other DSL or cable providers may see the wisdom of this and do the same. Lastly perhaps we can reallocate some Class A address space to the large always-on providers who need it. I think the Internet Society ought to give them an award or something (hint, hint).
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Perhaps there is a difference with the Nynex/BA side of Verizon and the GTE part. The GTE part uses 4.x.x.x which it got from a previous acquisition. At 07:05 PM 1/21/2001, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: Before handing out awards: one of my colleagues here, living in Westchester County, got a nice 10.x.x.x address (net A alright...) and couldn't figure out why Exceed wasn't working. However, I think it's high time to establish a "Good Housekeeping" seal for "real" (pure, unadultared, GM-free, ...) Internet service, i.e., - without "transparent" caches - no port restrictions - no NATs (and whatever other abominations one might want to add to this list). Seems like a good role for ISOC, for example :-) Matt Holdrege wrote: At 11:47 AM 1/21/2001, Daniel Senie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's stamp out NAT, *now* - before it becomes too entrenched and we can never get rid of it. We don't need that sort of "worked" again. Ummm, it's FAR too late for that. As for numbers of users, it's my guess a large percentage of the cable modem users and DSL users are running NAPT boxes. Speaking of DSL and NAT, I think we should give credit where credit is due and thank Verizon for handing out public Class A addresses to their legions of DSL users. If we credit them enough, three things may happen. First of all they will stay with this scheme and never use NAT. Secondly other DSL or cable providers may see the wisdom of this and do the same. Lastly perhaps we can reallocate some Class A address space to the large always-on providers who need it. I think the Internet Society ought to give them an award or something (hint, hint). - This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
At 02:38 PM 1/20/2001, Jim McMurry wrote: Then it seems we will have to create an ever expanding bandwidth to support all the overhead associated with NAT and these multiple layers. The overhead comes in the form of complexity rather than bandwidth. But complaining about NAT is not a new fad and usage of NAT hasn't been stemmed the tiniest bit. We can't keep burying our heads in the sand and trying to deny new work on dealing with NAT. It's here, it isn't going away and we have to find solutions for applications that need to deal with NAT. Work in this area is starting in the new MIDCOM working group. But some people are still worried about being politically correct with respect to denying the perceived legitimacy of NAT. I think we need to go full force in finding solutions in an open standards group rather than having a closed group solve the problem in an inelegant fashion.
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Excellent. We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's. From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset. e.g. the larger address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as the increasing number of routes. and i am not 'taunting' but trying to see how the hell we can solve some of the serious problems we have today and not take them with us to the v6 land of milk and honey, e.g. the multi6 discussion. if we don't get much smarter quickly, we'll just be making the same mess on a larger (in one dimension) scale. we need to take a very serious look at 8+8 again. we need to be open to other good ideas. You are absolutely right Randy. Unfortunately the coda for the IETF these days is "Rough Consensus and Shipping Code". One of the biggest problems these days is that we have people demanding backwards compatibility with things that don't really exist yet in a meaningful way. We are becoming more and more like the ITU these days. Several WG's such as SIP have engineers complaining about tiny little changes in a specification that would affect *their* code. So we can't fix a known problem in the spec even though hardly anyone is using this stuff yet.
Re: IETF logistics
At 05:10 PM 12/19/2000, Scott Bradner wrote: Nothing personal Frank, but in a general sense I'd say you weren't doing your job well enough. easy to say if you have not been and AD Frank was a good AD and managed WGs as well as any of us (and better than many) yet getting people out of presentation mode is hard and takes previewing the actual presentations - not something that an AD can do (nor should an AD be THAT involved) - Alliosn I sent mail to teh TSV WG chairs before the SD IETF meeting reminding the chairs that technology presentations were notthe best use of session time and yet many of the TSV WGs still had that type of presentations (including the tsvwg which we chair) Yes, Frank was a very good AD and as I said, nothing personal. But as AD's you all have the power to shape the meeting and choose or replace chairs. And as I've said in other forums, AD's have way too much to handle these days and the IETF is suffering a bit because of that. Something said in the SEAMOBY meeting was especially disturbing. The chair said that "it wasn't fair to the presenters" to cut them off. This came after the room gave resounding applause to cutting them off. Why do we have to be fair to the presenters? Why can't we be fair to the WG as a whole? I'll note a disclaimer that SEAMOBY was scheduled and formed as a WG very late in the game and the chairs perhaps didn't have enough time to organize better. But the same complaint could be made at many other WG meetings. -Matt(cc'ing the IESG since this is directed primarily to them)
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Folks should read and *refer* to the NAT WG documents before commenting. An awful lot of work was put into the content and wording of these documents. RFC 2663 draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-06.txt RFC 2993
Re: Email Privacy eating software
At 11:50 AM 7/18/00 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote: next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt if you turn up at customs with a laptop, you may be asked to show any and all files on it to the nice chaps there. if someone has sent you crypted email (say using your public key) you may be obliged to connect the lapto pto the public net and access your other key to decrypt the mail for the nice chaps in customs to priove that it is not to do with pornography or terrorism - whereeve yo uare from, you will have no recourse to say "no" or "this is commercial in confidence" or "my company will fire me if i let this go to anyone or send it over the net to decrypt at my home site etc etc" As one who travels to London quite often and has red hair and is of Irish descent, this sounds a bit overmuch to me. I've never had anything other than a kind welcome by British customs officials. There are loads of crazy laws in the U.S. and other countries. We citizens are grateful that the enforcement branch of the government chooses to ignore them unless provoked.
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
At 12:39 PM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: At 09:59 AM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: This draft is very incomplete and in my opinion not ready for prime time. The working group has in the past requested lists of protocols and applications which do not work with NATs. I have replied discussing those items for which I am most familiar: [...snipped] I think everyone agrees that the draft is incomplete. I've been begging for input for over a year now in the NAT WG meetings and on the NAT list. I've also asked every IETF WG chair for input. Our hope is that through IETF last call, we will get enough contributions such as yours to get a reasonable document together that folks can reference. I am not on the NAT mailing list; nor do I attend NAT working group meetings. I consider NATs to be architecturally unsound and that the IETF and IESG should in no way endorse their use or development. Just so there is no more confusion, in no way is the IETF endorsing the use or development of NAT. You've completely missed the point of the draft. It's purpose is to clearly point out the problems that NAT causes to a given set of protocols. Also please do not steer this thread towards a NAT bashing-fest. We need to complete this document and we need constructive input to this draft. Thanks again for your original input.
Re: Who is interested in wireless cards for the Adelaide IETF meeting?
At 04:08 PM 3/4/00 -0500, Marcus Leech wrote: Bill Sommerfeld wrote: I hope the 128 bit "gold" cards use a longer IV.. - Bill Does anyone know if the 128-bit variant of WEP is openly specified anywhere? The last I heard RC4 was owned by RSA and not exactly open. But I do have a PDF file describing Lucent's WEP implementation a layer above RC4, so it covers some of the key management details. If you really need it, let me know. Also you can read the encryption section of 802.11 With the spinoff of the Enterprise portion of Lucents business, will the 128-bit variant quietly die? I hope not (assuming that it's any good, of course). Certainly not. But as someone else mentioned, there are U.S. laws or regulations restricting sales of 128-bit encryption overseas. So I kind of doubt it will be enabled on the base stations in Adelaide. But I suppose you can purchase such cards in the U.S. and they will work fine in Adelaide with encryption turned off. As for pricing, note that the price for the cards that will be sold in Adelaide are in Australian dollars which are valued quite differently than U.S. dollars. Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer or a crypto expert. Nor do I work in the Wavelan division of Lucent. I'm just lamely trying to help.
Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
At 10:05 PM 12/7/99 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: Tripp Lilley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think NATs are architecturally "correct", but I think they're teaching us an important lesson about the (initially valid) assumptions about end to end connectivity. Even after we eradicate NATs through wholesale migration to v6 (optimist hat on), the paranoid will still deploy ALGs on their firewalls to mediate access to those globally routable lightbulb and security camera addresses. I'm not sure that's the right model, actually. IP addresses are too easy to forge. The right way to stop people from doing that sort of thing is to deploy end to end security protocols that strongly authenticate both ends. Anythink mankind can lock, mankind can unlock. You will never get rid of firewalls. At least not in our lifetimes.
