On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:09:18PM +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> The solution is to find new externets to reboost the network.
The Internet started as an overlay network over the telephony networks.
It has been tremendously successful for various reasons and it is now
even seeking to repl
> Anybody can write an Internet-Draft (getting IETF community consensus
> is another matter). In the case of a revision of a document created
Hi Bruce,
Great exhaustive mail. Thanks a ton. And I know, now, that it's
going to be a little tedious job. I have forgotten troff -- not worked
on it
Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
> [suresh] Why is it a problem with what Jonathan said in the IAB document?
> It is
> true that traditinal NATs do inherently provide a limited firewall
> functionality. Jonathan did not say that NAT function implies full
> Firewall
> functionality.
>
> Also, what exactly do
> Noel Chiappa wrote:
> However, another way to look at this is to say that what
> they really want is to configure their machines with only
> one identifier, one which is (mostly) location-independent,
> and therefore serves mostly to identify them. They are
> quite happy to then have those machin
Hi Tony,
I have not been followign this thread at all. But, I did happen to look at this
e-mail and decided to respond. Please see my comments below. Thanks.
regards,
suresh
--- Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> > ...
> > I agree that ALGs are not the answer, an
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> ...
> I agree that ALGs are not the answer, and I believe the reasons for that
> are treated in:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-nat-traversal-
> considerations-00.txt
I have a fundamental problem with an IAB document that implies NAT provides
a firew
Sorry, there isn't any paper on it yet. I think I should write a paper in a
few weeks.
Anyway, it is just a paper design with many open issues, such as quantitive
comparison with TCP, SCTP and so on.
-邮件原件-
发件人: Lars Eggert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
发送时间: 2005年3月14日 19:55
收件人: Jason Gao
抄
> From: Keith Moore
>> yeah, it *is* easier to deploy first and then later make incremental
>> modifications for scalability - if you like NAT.
> You do have to build upgrade paths into the architecture if you want it
> to last ... Making an architecture last is all about ..
> probably be to contact the appropriate IETF Area Directors
> for guidance and for the names of other people who might be
Thanks, Brian for the pointer.
However, since I first visited the URL yesterday, I am confused as to
which one to join. The closest that I could think of is ediint. Is
that a
On 10:46 14/03/2005, Tom Petch said:
> As you know, the value of a network is roughly proportional to
> the square of the participants.
The value of a network can depend on what is on it, not how many or who. One
useful (http/ftp/...) server can make a network worth accessing, worth paying
for. E
On Monday, March 14, 2005 09:18:43 AM -0500 Bill Sommerfeld
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:26, Bruce Campbell wrote:
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the
Hi Geoff,
- Original Message -
From: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 14, 2005 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: IETF63 wireless
> I believe that the concept that "meeting registration fees must
> cover all
> IETF suport costs" is, a best, an historical statement (and not
> ev
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
> (The best WG meeting I ever attended was one where Tony Li hammered
> out most of the IP-over-firewire details in one session by asking
> the attending firewire experts all the right questions in one
> sitting. I'm still wowed for life. But you can't do this for
> somet
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
> Stateful DHCP lease tracking was clearly causing more trouble than
> it's worth to the IETF network.
Ya' know, I'd be happy if I received a static IP address with my
meeting registration confirmation. I'd even be happy to supply my
wireless MAC address...
--aaron
__
Carsten Bormann wrote:
Lucy,
congratulations, but "First intercontinental videoconference from the
air"; hmm. Some of us have done this before (using iChat, no less).
Well, I've read my emails at 9.6kbps 2-3 years ago, even replied to
some, while above Atlantic. I must not have been the first doi
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:54:35 -0800 (PST), Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> So, how much are you(ietf attendees in general) willing to pay over and
> above the current cost of the meeting fee for the wireless service you
> want?
it would, in fact, be really nice to be presented with a concrete proposal, f
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:22:53 -0800 (PST)
"Lucy E. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> follow on to the Boeing presentation at the IAB Plenary:
> http://www.vrvs.org/Announcements/Plane/VRVS_in_the_air.html
>
> Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services
> Computing Center
I believe that the concept that "meeting registration fees must cover all
IETF suport costs" is, a best, an historical statement (and not even
correct in that context). With the changes with the IASA activity I believe
we have the opportunity to get this right, rather than muddling around
atte
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
This is about a mindset and an organizational approach that does not
leave those volunteers out on a limb with fragile equipment, or
insufficient resources. It is about our approaching this as a utility
service and ensuring that that is what is delivered.
Lucy,
congratulations, but "First intercontinental videoconference from the
air"; hmm.
Some of us have done this before (using iChat, no less).
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
>> off.
>
> Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
> document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
> instant messaging (e.g. "we need you in here right now"). And some
> people
At 9:22 AM -0500 3/13/05, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Date: 2005-03-12 11:18
From: Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
where's that Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem scorecard?
You're probably thinking of
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
great list. but just because the
follow on to the Boeing presentation at the IAB Plenary:
http://www.vrvs.org/Announcements/Plane/VRVS_in_the_air.html
Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services
Computing CenterUniversity of Oregon
llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774
Wooaah!
Great to see your mail, Rik.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. This is the mailing list for the
Another "great to see".
> I wasn't able to find mail from you dated prior to yesterday (maybe the
> spam filters got it).
Yikes. And there's something to hate the spam filters. ;-)
Regarding the firewalls and IPv6, I agree with your comment, but also there
are some other reasons why that's bad, see:
draft-vives-v6ops-ipv6-security-ps-03.txt
and
draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6security-02.txt
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTEC
Melinda Shore wrote:
However, while slides do tend to lead to a presentation-type
meeting format, I think there are other factors substantially
contributing to that, as well.
Yes. Another factor is the ratio of work items to meeting time.
If there are 5-6 or even more items per a two-hour slot ther
inline.
Tony Hain wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
This discussion seems to take as a premise the view that if we define
applications only on IPv6, even though they could be defined on IPv4, that
this will give people a reason to use IPv6.
It also seems to take as a premise that if we don't define way
> From the top of my head, there are at least three kinds of
> presentations I see frequently at the IETFs:
>
> a) about 5 slides (or less) of background for the work, some major
> points, and maybe what has changed, on the last slide soliciting for
> input on certain specific topics,
>
>
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 06:26, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
> and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
> scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly.
Power was most assuredly not a proble
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial progress of some draft, I
find myself wondering - does _anybody_ here need to be watching this? If
someone has typed in this summary in PPT, couldn't it as easily be posted to
the WG mailing list, or place
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 03:10, Tim Chown wrote:
> Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
> some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alcatel, so the favourite
> for the s/w is the same vendor...).
>
> Note that my problem all week was getting dis-associated from WLA
I personally think that it may be appropriate that most people are not
paying attention
much of the time. In some WG, you may only really care about 1 or 2
drafts, and not at all
about the details of the editorial progress of some other draft.
Whenever I see a presentation about the editorial pro
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:07:05 -0500
Keith Moore wrote:
> >> if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
> >> off.
> >
> > Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
> > document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
> > insta
I would add that the first step in such an effort should
probably be to contact the appropriate IETF Area Directors
for guidance and for the names of other people who might be
interested in helping.
This looks like Applications Area material to me.
See http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html#
On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 08:34 AM, Carl Malamud wrote:
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
The NY Times ran an article on PowerPoint and the deterioration of
public speaking a few years ago, before Tufte started
On Mar 14 2005, at 14:07 Uhr, Keith Moore wrote:
we used to get a lot more work done when we used our meetings
primarily for discussion rather than scheduling presentations for most
or all of the meeting time.
Yes. WG chairs planning WG meetings, take note.
But then, one difference is that a lot
> As for presentations, the fact that they vary in quality can't be
> blamed on PPT. It should be blamed on the presenters, perhaps.
>
> Brian
>
Edward Tufte makes a very convincing case that in the case of
powerpoint, the medium certainly influences the message:
Summary of Tufte's views in
This may be interesting if you want to take a look at models of adoption of
technology.
http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=62
9
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: Tom Petch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:
> Date: 2005-03-14 04:24
> From: Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Looking again into 2026 I'm still not sure how Gaurav
> could handle this if the authors don't answer.
Anybody can write an Internet-Draft (getting IETF community consensus
is another matter). In the case of a revision of a
if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better
off.
Personal opinion: disagree. Wireless is immensely useful to grab a
document, check something on another SDO's web site, and - yes - for
instant messaging (e.g. "we need you in here right now"). And some
people simply have
inline
Tom Petch
From: "Kevin Loch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Why?
>
> As you know, the value of a network is roughly proportional to
> the square of the participants.
The value of a network can depend on what is on it, not how many or who
Jason Gao wrote:
Here ATP stands for Asymmetric Transport Protocol (somewhat for historical
reason), not Appletalk Transaction Protocol.
Welcome to http://atp.ebloggy.com/ to add comment.
Is there a paper on it? The web page and your email don't have details.
--
Lars Eggert
The IETF Meeting crew should look at supplying an additional 3 ethernet
and power drops per room, labelled 'chair', 'presenter' and '(jabber)
scribe' with the expectation that they be used accordingly. These
functions, IMHO, are too important to leave to the possible
failures/overloads of the wir
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> > if we could get rid of wireless and powerpoint, we'd be much better off.
>
> meetings in the first place. The jabber scribing has become very
> important for remote participants - this time we even had one Area
The IETF
>Or instead... I'd then go to W3C and ask for a standard
And I just forgot how costly it is to be a member of W3C :D
--
Cheers,
Gaurav Vaish
http://www.mastergaurav.org
http://mastergaurav.blogspot.com
___
Ietf ma
Keith Moore wrote:
...
actually I haven't attended an IETF meeting in the past several years
where I didn't get the impression that we'd be much more effective
at getting work done _without_ wireless access. large rooms that are
full of people sitting down typing on laptops and not paying attenti
> Looking again into 2026 I'm still not sure how Gaurav
> could handle this if the authors don't answer. And if
>From 2229 (C) statement:
However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the
Michel Py wrote:
Terry Gray wrote:
Keith,
Quick note from the peanut gallery: I believe your vision is
only achievable if the address allocation policies for v6 are
such that every man/woman/child and enterprise can obtain an
"ample" amount of provider-independent v6 space (or some number
of addre
Here ATP stands for Asymmetric Transport Protocol (somewhat for historical
reason), not Appletalk Transaction Protocol.
Welcome to http://atp.ebloggy.com/ to add comment.
Known problems:
Lack of references section;
Lack of elliptic curve parameter definition;
and much more:)
Briefly:
ATP aims t
Baker Fred wrote:
> I have some bed-time reading for you
Thanks, excl. the new 3978/3979 I had read these texts.
Looking again into 2026 I'm still not sure how Gaurav
could handle this if the authors don't answer. And if
the "inventors" of IsNot also "invented" dict he might
need a lawyer _befor
Tim,
I was trying to say that:
- Wireless 802.11 is an emerging technology (read "not fully cooked yet")
- Wireless 802.11 is a wireless (read "radio) technology subject to
complex patterns of interference and station interactions ("station"
includes both basestations and clients)
So, it is
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 05:02:00PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> It is precisely the style of thinking, and not the specifics,
> that I was trying to suggest and illustrate.
Indeed; there seems to be some 'smart' Alcatel software that is doing
some ARP/DHCP trickery (at least the APs are Alc
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:47:05PM -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Simply saying that a network which is built by volunteers (or by anyone
> else for that matter) MUST be reliable is just naive. It's a bit like
> saying operating systems and other software must be bug free. Keep in
> mind that the
53 matches
Mail list logo
