Keith Moore wrote:
> > | at least in those days, gateway proponents didn't insist that people
> > | shouldn't include email addresses in the bodies of their messages.
> >
> > You miss the point that including "GRECO::MARYK" as an email address
> > in a USENET message is about as useful as inclu
> | Nowadays people often act as if NATs were the way the Internet was supposed
> | to work, and that it's the applications and the users of those applications
> | who are broken if they want a network that supports a global address space.
>
> Well, the genie is out of the bottle, and if NAT is w
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:11:12 +0100, Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I liked even better the horror story of the gateway that tried.
> until someone wrote "this gateway translates [EMAIL PROTECTED] into
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]", and it came out to the recipient as
> "this gateway tr
At 12:42 22/01/2001 -0500, John Stracke wrote:
>There was even an analogy to NAT's "addresses embedded in the application data
>stream" problem: if you had an address in your .signature, the gateway
>couldn't
>translate it, so the person receiving your message saw an address they
>couldn't
>use.
| Nowadays people often act as if NATs were the way the Internet was supposed
| to work, and that it's the applications and the users of those applications
| who are broken if they want a network that supports a global address space.
Well, the genie is out of the bottle, and if NAT is winning
Valdis Kletnieks writes:
| On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:53:30 +0100, Sean Doran said:
| > Nobody really constrains protocols from carrying a local IP address
| > around any more than anyone constrains from putting local addresses
| > into a text message. It's just that communicating by naively replyin
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:53:30 +0100, Sean Doran said:
> Nobody really constrains protocols from carrying a local IP address
> around any more than anyone constrains from putting local addresses
> into a text message. It's just that communicating by naively replying
> to such an embedded address i
> | at least in those days, gateway proponents didn't insist that people
> | shouldn't include email addresses in the bodies of their messages.
>
> You miss the point that including "GRECO::MARYK" as an email address
> in a USENET message is about as useful as including 10.0.0.26 in an
> IP heade
Keith Moore writes:
| at least in those days, gateway proponents didn't insist that people
| shouldn't include email addresses in the bodies of their messages.
You miss the point that including "GRECO::MARYK" as an email address
in a USENET message is about as useful as including 10.0.0.26 in an
> > I remember when the email
> > network was a heterogeneous network consisting of UUCP, BITNET, DECnet,
> > SMTP, X.400, and a few other things thrown in. It "worked", sort of,
> > but we had all kinds of problems with the translations at the boundaries,
> > with addresses from one network leak
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 IPv
Hi all,
What do I need to get an AS on the Internet? Money, a certain
number of IP's, the right ISP? Does anyone have specifics?
Thanks,
Dave
Keith Moore wrote:
> I remember when the email
> network was a heterogeneous network consisting of UUCP, BITNET, DECnet,
> SMTP, X.400, and a few other things thrown in. It "worked", sort of,
> but we had all kinds of problems with the translations at the boundaries,
> with addresses from one ne
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > - without "transparent" caches
>
> Do you mean interception proxies, in WREC terminology?
Yes.
>
> > - no port restrictions
>
> And no protocol type restrictions
>
> > - no NATs
>
> How about adding IPv6 support?
Good idea.
> >
> > (and whatever other abom
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
...
> 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
Do you mean interception proxies, in WREC terminology?
> - no port restrictions
An
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > 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
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> you might check out the rather sprited discussion during the plenary at
> ietf49...
>
> the official proceeding will be up shortly on the ietf website, video of
> the event is at:
>
> http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf49.html
What can be heard on the audio (so
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:34:59 +0700, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Get2NIC wrote:
>
> >ZiplogMail-Free Spam & Virus-Proof E-mail Accounts.
>
> ROFL
I admit I encountered a parse error on that. Is it:
ZiplogMail - providing free spam
or "spam containing no ZiplogMa
Get2NIC wrote:
>ZiplogMail-Free Spam & Virus-Proof E-mail Accounts.
ROFL
PS:
- if Major Domo knew how to cope this, he would be
General Domo by now :^)
--
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
Gong Xi Fa Cai - Hong Bao Na Lai
Welcome to the premiere edition of the "Get2Nic News" Newsletter! In this edition we will introduce you to "The NIC"-A new internet computer that uses an easy system to get you online as soon as you open the box! You will discover new products, a trustworthy ISP, Marke
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Keith Moore typed:
>>> 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
21 matches
Mail list logo
