Bonney "Robin Hood" Kooper wrote:
[..]
> But if you take the
> system view and consider the big picture, and try to
> see who is benefitting most in increased revenues as a
> result of pushing their proprietary standards as IETF
> standards, [..]
If you are not seeing any personal or bus
> Furthermore, the IETF specifications that allow 7-bit software should be
> fixed as soon as possible. Do you disagree with this?
> Or do you want these bugs to continue to plague programmers in 10 years?
> 20 years? 50 years?
I'm having trouble understanding why we're still using these old
pro
At 10:18 AM 3/18/2002 -0600, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, William Allen Simpson writes:
>>"The Purple Streak (Hilarie Orman)" wrote:
...
>
>But Bill, I'm trying to understand what your point is. We can't force
>people to use security. IPsec is standard in most major
FYI. Dedicated VPN HW Hits $1.3 Billion as shown at
http://www.infonetics.com/resources/quarterly_worldwide_market_share_forecas
ts_4q01.htm It has a sizeable installation out there, though it does have
some large deployment issues.
Michael Shieh
-Original Message-
From: Alex Alten [m
Sigh. I knew I shouldn't have put a dollar figure in my response.
Michael you have to take those reports with a grain of salt, dollar
amounts tend to be meaningless. At the risk of getting nailed here's
how I did my math. Red Creek last year shipped about 1% of the hw
IPsec VPN boxes worldwid
well, the stock market is very volatile so it won't be good for the
reference. If you use my company for calculation, you probably think VPN
has bigger market than Routers does ;-)
my company makes integrated firewall & vpn box and revenue last year is 85M.
we only have small market shares com
Ok, I have to say something.
I agree that NATs are evil, and *should* not exist. But, since ISP's
currently charge tons of money for more than one IP address, they always
*will* exist.
Maybe IPv6 will fix all that . . . . we can only pray . . .
--
David Frascone
Reality is for those
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:00:22 PST, Peter Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would love to see the complete solution to signaling all the potential
> blocking intermediate hops in the network that specific traffic should
> pass.
I would love to see the complete *SECURE* solution to signaling all
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:40:02 CST, David Frascone said:
> I agree that NATs are evil, and *should* not exist. But, since ISP's
> currently charge tons of money for more than one IP address, they always
> *will* exist.
Bad logic. They won't "always will". They will as long as ISPs have the
curre
At 11:44 AM 3/18/02 +, Paul Robinson wrote:
>However, I remember occasions when reading a
>draft and thinking to myself 'this is a *really* bad idea to implement' and
>realising that the only way I was going to get heard was to get to the next
>meetings. ...
I must challenge this assertion --
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:44:57 +0100, Thor Harald Johansen said:
> How can I participate in an IETF meeting? I'm a student, so money is
> short. ;) Is it possible to "be there" electronically?
I've never been spotted at an IETF meeting. In fact, I think I've only
ever been spotted in person by abo
> Being practical, you only *need* to attend a meeting if there is an
> intractable problem in front of a WG you're actively participating in,
> and solving that problem requires a face-to-face session.
essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
restaurants, and bars -
> I will note that the one thing going for the home network NAT guys is
> that they have focused on making things work to the extent that they
> even have George Hamilton selling NATs at the poolside on TV commercials
> for Circuit City.
well, maybe he can solve the NAT problem, but I can't.
>
>>Well, you do have about 200Mbits/sec connected to the Hilton at the moment
>>which should support a substantial number of mostly audio content feeds,
>>but that's not likely to be available every meeting depending on sponsor.
>>Besides, I believe you just need to send out a few streams to distri
> I agree that NATs are evil, and *should* not exist. But, since ISP's
> currently charge tons of money for more than one IP address, they always
> *will* exist.
>
> Maybe IPv6 will fix all that . . . . we can only pray . . .
easily fixed.
get a single IPv4 address, assign it to a 6to4 router
Peter Ford wrote:
> I would love to see the complete solution to signaling all the potential
> blocking intermediate hops in the network that specific traffic should
> pass.
Me too.
Sadly, that would require broadcasting to the whole Internet.
Joe
David Frascone wrote:
> Ok, I have to say something.
>
> I agree that NATs are evil, and *should* not exist. But, since ISP's
> currently charge tons of money for more than one IP address, they always
> *will* exist.
I wish there were more appreciation for the ephemeral nature of solutions.
Ot
At the risk of prolonging this thread:
On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 21:43, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> One answer is to set up some kind of "Hardship Case" program to which
> hardship cases may submit an application for a special discounted
> registration fee, citing their hardship situation.
>
> I shou
For people who don't know Han, there is not differet between the ACEs and
Hans.
But the case is not suitable for us who use Chinese or other non-ASCII
glyphs.
There is much different to see a Han or a ACE!!
Your criteria for success are too low for us.
- Original Message -
From: "Pete R
And why don't you think RSVP would work?
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:04 AM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: John Stracke; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue
Peter Ford wrote:
> I would love to see the complete solut
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:50:27 PST, Peter Ford said:
> And why don't you think RSVP would work?
Compute the chances that an *arbitrary* end-to-end connection on the
Internet passes entirely through routers and firewalls that support RSVP.
Remember to factor in how often Path MTU Discovery doesn't w
> essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:43:06 CST, Matt Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
I'm willing to p
OK, but that does not solve the problem where the NATs are mostly deployed
-- home and SOHO -- until all internet servers of interest to those users
speak IPv6. "Can be upgraded to do so" is great if you control the server,
but these users don't. So Yahoo, Google, etc can be pursuaded to upg
> > in a just world, the NAT vendors would all be sued out of existence for
> > the harm they've done to the Internet. in the real world, if you can
> > hire a famous personality to advertise your product on TV, then by
> > definition it must work well.
>
> The last time I was thi
> OK, but that does not solve the problem where the NATs are mostly deployed
> -- home and SOHO -- until all internet servers of interest to those users
> speak IPv6. "Can be upgraded to do so" is great if you control the server,
> but these users don't.
true enough. fortunately, NAT doesn't i
On Mar 19, "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Robinson writes:
> > Something *should* be done, but your argument has a hint of
> > 'I never want anything done, ever' about it, which is putting people off.
>
> I have put a huge amount of effort into evaluating the costs of variou
> > > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
> >
> > Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
>
> I'm willing to place bets that a *very* large chunk of things
> accomplished in
everyone--
I know this is a frequent source of heated discussion, and that much has
already been said that doesn't need to be repeated here, but I *just*
*can't* *let* *this* *go* unchallenged.
-
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 08:26 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> [...]
> in a just world, the NA
On Mar 19, "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Go sell a Greek user an ``internationalized domain name'' with a delta,
> Pete. Then tell him that most of his correspondents will see the delta
> as incomprehensible gobbledygook rather than a delta. See what he says.
OK, scenario 1:
Yo
> The first thing I would suggest is to sit back and contemplate whether
> the situation bears any resemblance to other problems in which the user
> population engages in behavior that results in short-term personal
> benefit in exchange for long-term harm to the welfare of society.
granted there
> > essentially all of the work done at meetings happens in the hallways,
> > restaurants, and bars - when small groups of people get together ...
>
> Yes, I see. So much for the myth of an open process.
you cleverly left off the rest of my statement where I said
the ideas are reviewed by WGs.
On Mar 18, grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the IETF meetings you've participated in, are you saying the morning
> and afternoon stimulants failed to help you stay awake during your various
> WGs, BOFs, and hallway discussions?
Stimulants? Who needs stimulants when you've got u
Keith,
In a just world, people freely purchase the things they want and believe
solves a real world problem for them.
The Internet has grown at an incredible rate and I suspect in large part
due to NATs. I wonder if the Internet would sue the NAT vendors, or
thank them for establishing a br
> You've said that you don't go to meetings, so I won't fault your
> naivete, but the bulk of the hallway and bar work consists of
> squashing, not originating, WG items.
since more bad/naive ideas are generated than good ones, this seems
entirely appropriate.
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Keith Moore
had to walk into mine and say:
>
> granted there are numerous instances of this. but it seems disingenuous
> to blame the NAT problem on users when the NAT vendors are doing their
> best to mislead users about the harm that N
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> [I wrote:]
>> The first thing I would suggest is to sit back and contemplate whether
>> the situation bears any resemblance to other problems in which the user
>> population engages in behavior that results in short-term personal
>> ben
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> I think this is an artifact of the use of mailing lists for WG traffic:
> it's just not practical to follow all the mailing lists. (I sure
> don't.) A possible solution would be to feed all of the WG lists into a
> read-only IMAP (and NNTP) server
>
> To believe this, you must believe that large vendors
> are unable to ship a
> product until it has some sort of IETF rubber stamp.
Stephen,
It does increase the acceptance of a solution
specially when customers are concerned about
inter-operatability issues. It is more so in carrier
networ
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it seems disingenuous to blame the NAT problem on users when the NAT
> vendors are doing their best to mislead users about the harm that NAT
> does.
Oh, piffle. NAT's don't "harm the Internet", any more than a host of other
things: "invis
> I think you missed the important point. It's not the NAT vendors, it's
> the ISPs.
I'll grant that ISPs have something to do with it. But there is a
shortage of IPv4 addresses, so it's not as if anybody can have as
many as they want. And it's not the fact that people are selling
NAT that I fi
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> ...
> security alone demands that we be able to
> move some functionality to a "site border router", or some
> such.
Why does security demand an external border? Is that based on the
assumption that the host is too stupid to protect itself? If it is based
on having an app l
> Oh, piffle. NAT's don't "harm the Internet", any more than a host of other
> things:
the fact that other things do harm doesn't mean that NATs don't also
do harm, or that the harm done by NAT is somehow lessened or excused.
and IMHO most of the other things you mentioned do less harm than NATs
Keith;
> > I think you missed the important point. It's not the NAT vendors, it's
> > the ISPs.
>
> I'll grant that ISPs have something to do with it. But there is a
> shortage of IPv4 addresses, so it's not as if anybody can have as
> many as they want.
Wrong.
There actually is no shortage o
Paul Robinson writes:
> You tell him that although it's gobbledygook to people without greek
> alphabet support, it will still work. It's not convenient, but it WILL
> work. Guaranteed.
False. IDNA does _not_ work. IDNA causes interoperability failures. Mail
will bounce, for example, in situation
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:01:14 PST, Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Why does security demand an external border? Is that based on the
> assumption that the host is too stupid to protect itself? If it is based
Yes.
The host may be too stupid to protect itself - read Bugtraq or other simila
D. J. Bernstein;
> Paul Robinson writes:
> > You tell him that although it's gobbledygook to people without greek
> > alphabet support, it will still work. It's not convenient, but it WILL
> > work. Guaranteed.
>
> False. IDNA does _not_ work. IDNA causes interoperability failures.
IDNA does _n
Hi.
One or two of the messages I've sent out haven't received a single reply
(wich is strange, considering there's always some person who disagrees
with you).
How is this list moderated? Is it at all? What's ok and what gets filtered
out?
--
Thor
Date:Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:32:41 +0859 ()
From:Masataka Ohta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| IDNA does _not_ work, because Unicode does not work in International
| context.
This argument is bogus, and always has been. If (and where) unicode
49 matches
Mail list logo
