I am looking for early drafts of RFC 2298 (dating to December of 1996 or earlier). Is there any archives of these drafts kept anywhere. I am particularly interested in the document draft-ietf-receipt-mdn-01.txt or some later (but not much later) version.
Thanks,
Kamal
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
I agree - much better if you don't have NAT.
I'm not qualified to discuss the best way to accelerate the advantages that
the Internet brings to everyone's lives while simultaneously encouraging
people to move to IPv6. But if the powers-that-be wish there to be a VoIP
solution that supports
S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an
H.323 connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends
and immediately concluded that people on any kind of wireless mesh
that uses NAT are going to be severely limited since they aren't truly
www.watersprings.org is useful
they have versions 0 through 7 of this draft.
a shame the ietf doesn't archive like this!
tim
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:25:39PM -0800, Kamal Jamali wrote:
I am looking for early drafts of RFC 2298 (dating to December of 1996 or earlier).
Is there any
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an
H.323 connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends
and immediately concluded that people on any kind of wireless mesh
that
To connect VoIP with my other email. One of the most interested user
groups for fixed wireless networks is people with no telecomms
infrastructure to speak of. That is to say, much of the developing
world. In these places VoIP is a very popular application for a few
reasons ... first because
Keith Moore wrote:
your understanding is incorrect. the question posed at the
meeting was
quite clear. and yes, the plurality of opinions in the room was so
overwhelmingly in favor of deprecating site local (even if it's
something people are already using) that it is inconceivable
At 05:50 PM 3/25/2003 -0500, S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an H.323
connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends and
immediately concluded that people on any kind of wireless mesh that uses
NAT are going to be severely
S Woodside wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote:
proponents want to be able to do massive multihoming, with all
participants with external links sharing those links, and all the
traffic from the outside finding the shortest way in. I won't say
it's impossible,
Tony Hain wrote:
Trying to use SL for routing between sites is what is broken.
But that's not all...
The space
identified in RFC 1918 was set aside because people were taking whatever
addresses they could find in documentation.
Not as I recall. Jon Postel received several requests for
Tony Hain wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
your understanding is incorrect. the question posed at the
meeting was
quite clear. and yes, the plurality of opinions in the room was so
overwhelmingly in favor of deprecating site local (even if it's
something people are already using) that
Tony writes:
The space
identified in RFC 1918 was set aside because people were taking
whatever
addresses they could find in documentation.
There is a long and interesting history here, but it isn't directly
relevant
to this discussion. I think it would be valuable to focus the
discussion
Eliot Lear wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
SNIP
SL was set aside because
there are people that either want unrouted space, or don't want to
continuously pay a registry to use a disconnected network.
Any address space can be unrouted address space. Fix the underlying
problem, Tony. Making
Ted Hardie wrote:
There is a long and interesting history here, but it isn't
directly
relevant
to this discussion. I think it would be valuable to focus the
discussion on Site Local,
rather than on RFC 1918 space.
The reason for bring 1918 into the discussion is that prior to NAT,
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, S Woodside wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an
H.323 connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends
and immediately concluded
On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 16:38, Tony Hain wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
I think you may underestimate how much trouble this might cause in
applications.
As Dave Crocker noted in response to Margaret Wasserman's
presentation to the APPs Open Area meeting, applications have
been designed so
At 10:14 PM 3/26/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Seeing that route filtering only gets done automaticaly for
the last couple of years and the fact that that is only a
route + ASN mapping I don't see why all of a sudden there
will be some magical solution for renumbering complete networks.
Really?
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Seeing that route filtering only gets done automaticaly for
the last couple of years and the fact that that is only a
route + ASN mapping I don't see why all of a sudden there
will be some magical solution for renumbering complete networks.
Fred Baker wrote:
Really? I
At 1:38 PM -0800 3/26/03, Tony Hain wrote:
I am not arguing that every app need to know about topology. If this is
such a big deal, we should simply fix the API so that by default it only
returns global scope addresses, then add a new function for those apps
that are interested in the limited
Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Seeing that route filtering only gets done automaticaly for
the last couple of years and the fact that that is only a
route + ASN mapping I don't see why all of a sudden there
will be some magical solution for renumbering
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Thanks Michel for listing the things that I once forgot too.
Let me guess: until you actually had to renumber a large one :-) with a
flag day maybe :-D
In my experience, the pain is not with your own network but with
external partners such as supply chain and distribution.
Michael Mealling wrote:
Its not that 'we don't want to change because its to much
work'. Its that the Internet architecture assured us that the
hour glass model applied, that the network topology would
remain abstracted within what to us is an opaque address
space. One of the number one
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
There is a long and interesting history here, but it isn't
directly
relevant
to this discussion. I think it would be valuable to focus the
discussion on Site Local,
rather than on RFC 1918 space.
The reason for bring
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
The WG chairs of the IPv6 WG did determine that there was
consensus of those in the room to deprecate site-local
addressing in IPv6. Like all consensus achieved at IETF
meetings, this consensus will be checked on the list.
BTW, I was at the meeting (Tony was
Ted Hardie wrote:
I think we then to consider whether the current need
is for: non-routed globally unique space or for
something else. If the answer is non-routed globally
unique space, then the follow-on question is Why not
get globally unique space and simply decide not to
route it?.
Tony Hain wrote:
History shows people will use private address space for a variety of
reasons. Getting rid of a published range for that purpose will only
mean they use whatever random numbers they can find. This has also been
shown to create operational problems, so we need to give them the tool
John-
Processing those applications would mean lots more work for the
Secretariat. And then there'd be the time spent on people
complaining because they were turned down.
(And, there would be several well-known
categories of folk who would be helped: academics, students,
self-funded,
Michel,
I don't think something needs to be provider independent
to fit this bill. Getting a slice of the global address space from
some provider and choosing not route a portion of it (even
if that portion is 100%) seems to me to create non-routed
globally unique space. Are you concerned that
--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2003 15:13 -0800 Tony Hain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Mealling wrote:
Its not that 'we don't want to change because its to much
work'. Its that the Internet architecture assured us that the
hour glass model applied, that the network topology would
remain
At 02:37 PM 3/26/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
What do you do for:
- Route-maps.
- Prefix-lists.
- Access-lists.
Those fall under configure the router... Yes, things one does that use
prefixes are going to have to be reconfigured using prefixes.
- Firewall configs.
A firewall is either an
Ultimately, as I wrote with others some nine years ago, some practices
should not be codified. With IPv4 at least there was a plausible
argument for network 10. I didn't like it, nor did I agree with it, but
it was plausible. The same cannot be said for v6.
Incidentally, Sun HP's use of
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 04:22:55PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
At 02:37 PM 3/26/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
What do you do for:
- Route-maps.
- Prefix-lists.
- Access-lists.
Those fall under configure the router... Yes, things one does that use
prefixes are going to have to be reconfigured
Ted,
What happens when you change providers?
Rgds,
-drc
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 04:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Michel,
I don't think something needs to be provider independent
to fit this bill. Getting a slice of the global address space from
some provider and choosing not route a
Hi David,
Provider of what? Note that if a provider of address space is not
routing the addresses involved, they have few or no performance
responsibilities in the arena. They don't even need to polish and
regrind
the digits periodically; they just go. It seems unlikely to me
personally that
John C Klensin wrote:
...
For most of the cut section, consider that while 'good practice' says to
use names, reality is that too many apps still grab the address for
random reasons.
But, obviously, I'm not understanding something. Could you
explain?
There is a lot of noise about treating
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Ted,
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
If you were using some of an allocated portion as routable addresses
and some as unrouted addresses, you might be forced to change the
unrouted addresses as a
Thus spake Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Customers that are stupid enough...
Someone else's stupidity is not my problem.
As a vendor, every customer problem is your problem.
Go visit some Fortune 500 customers and ask:
. Are you aware you won't be able to get portable IPv6 addresses?
. How
Or what if there is no provider (as in default addresses used by a
software vendor)?
-andy
David Conrad wrote:
Ted,
What happens when you change providers?
Rgds,
-drc
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 04:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Michel,
I don't think something needs to be provider
From the reading of the draft, it would appear that much of the pain
for applications with SL is caused because the apps violated the contract.
Actually, its a wonder any of these would work in v6 at all given the
description of the problem (address leaks).
-andy
Michael Mealling wrote:
Its
--On Wednesday, March 26, 2003 20:05:11 -0600 Stephen Sprunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Customers that are stupid enough...
Someone else's stupidity is not my problem.
As a vendor, every customer problem is your problem.
Go visit some Fortune
At 08:40 PM 3/26/2003, David Conrad wrote:
Ted,
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
If you were using some of an allocated portion as routable addresses
and some as unrouted addresses, you might be forced to change the
unrouted addresses as a consequences of
Tony,
The specifics of the site local issue should be debated on the IPv6 WG
list, not on the global IETF list. Let me however respond to your point
regarding the quality of the debate, as I was the note taker during that
session.
My notes record that 22 separate speakers took part to this
Fred / Stephen,
Michel Py wrote:
- Customers that are stupid enough...
Fred Baker wrote:
Someone else's stupidity is not my problem.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
As a vendor, every customer problem is your problem.
Go visit some Fortune 500 customers and ask:
Are you aware you won't be able to
Thus spake Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The specifics of the site local issue should be debated on the IPv6 WG
list, not on the global IETF list. Let me however respond to your point
regarding the quality of the debate, as I was the note taker during that
session.
Issues most often
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Måns Nilsson wrote:
--On Wednesday, March 26, 2003 20:05:11 -0600 Stephen Sprunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Customers that are stupid enough...
Someone else's stupidity is not my problem.
As a vendor, every customer
--On Thursday, March 27, 2003 09:11:57 +0200 Pekka Savola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't get a portable IPv6 address allocation only by being a LIR.
Except by lying or having an interesting interpretation of the required
200 customers in the application, of course...
That is because
--On onsdag, mars 26, 2003 17:40:23 -0800 David Conrad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted,
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:03 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
If you were using some of an allocated portion as routable addresses
and some as unrouted addresses, you might be forced to change the
This has not been discussed on the WG mail list, so despite your
apparent limited ability to conceive of valid objections, they do
exist.
actually it's the other way around. there are far more valid
objections to the use of SL than there are to deprecating SL.
Trying to use SL for routing
The reason for bring 1918 into the discussion is that prior to NAT,
there was a market demand for private address space.
sometimes the market is misled by vendors who want to sell planned
obsolesence. NAT is the perfect example.
since it is in fact the violation of
the layering by the apps that has created some of the mobility and
renumbering challenges.
uh, no. DNS is not a layer. it is a naming service. it's not the
only way that an app can get an IP address, and never has been.
Ignoring the format of addresses has worked well for 1918 addresses
(loathsome as they might be) because the assumption is that filtering
(so that they don't leak onto the public network) is the
responsibility of anything that connects a 1918 network to the public
Internet.
but this assumption
There is a lot of noise about treating SL special, but as you note an
application can ignore that a 1918 address is somehow different from
any
other address. If an application were to do the same and just use a SL
as any other address, it will work just fine until one of the
participants is on
So pure Internet SIP won't work for all of us any time soon.
Glad to clear up the confusion on this point. People on the PSTN can
dial in and can be called from the SIP conferencing server by using a
service provider that has standard PSTN-SIP gateways. The typical SIP
voice conference has both
53 matches
Mail list logo
