I encountered this article, perhaps worth seeing a lay-person's views on
the subject. If not, however, I particularly like the little excerpt
they use to some up NAT discussions:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/ipv6.ars
This is usually when someone brings up NAT. Home routers (and a lot
On 2007-3-7, at 12:34, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
North America changes to Daylight Savings Time this weekend 10/11
March.
Europe changes two weeks later, 24/25 March, immediately after the
IETF.
This has consequences.
This may be useful to folks:
From: Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My 2 cents inline...
-Message d'origine-
De : Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé :
mercredi 7 mars 2007 23:50 À : Sam Hartman Cc : ietf@ietf.org Objet :
Re: [Dan Harkins] comments on draft-houseley-aaa-key-mgmt-07.txt
Hi Sam,
Many thanks for the opportunity
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:41:02AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 115 lines which said:
OK lets try code, at the moment to start up a TCP socket you have
code of the form:
In C. In every other language I know, it is at a much higher
level. (Even in C,
Phill,
I'm not playing with words. The style of 'connection' involved in a SIP session
with proxies is very different from that of a classical TCP session or a
SOAP/HTTP/TCP session, or something using SCTP for some signalling purpose.
And audio or video streaming over RTP is something else
John,
Thank you for your feedback.
We will take the following actions to address your concerns:
We will review appropriate government sites and leading travel guides
during the venue qualification process and selection. We will also
provide links to those sites when we announce venues in the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I still believe that the time is right for an IETF WG to define SOHO
gateway requirements for IPv6 networks because IPv4 wind-down will
cause
more people to take a serious look at how and why to deploy IPv6. One
single good idea in a SOHO
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be the setting of a
hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. This would make it
real for everyone and ignite the IPv6/IPv4 gateway market (I think). Not to
mention we'd never have to
Y2K had a slightly different dynamic, largely driven by the marketing practices
of Y2K vampires. As soon as the fangs were buried in a fresh prey the victim
was forced to send letters to all its suppliers asking if they were Y2K
compliant, thus creating fresh meat for the pack to hunt, and so
Ray,
--On Friday, 09 March, 2007 09:35 -0500 Ray Pelletier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Thank you for your feedback.
We will take the following actions to address your concerns:
We will review appropriate government sites and leading travel
guides during the venue qualification process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:22:05AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I don't have any examples to present since most of the
reclamation that has been done over the past few years was done
without
any fanfare. The RIRs and the organizations involved are
$Id: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07-rev.txt,v 1.1 2007/03/09 18:52:17 ekr Exp
$
BACKGROUND
This document specifies a generic mechanism for including additional
non-TLS authentication data (e.g., attribute certificates). This
data isn't necessary to complete the handshake cryptographically
but
Nick Staff wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I still believe that the time is right for an IETF WG to define SOHO
gateway requirements for IPv6 networks because IPv4 wind-down will
cause
more people to take a serious look at how and why to deploy IPv6. One
single
The IETF Administrative Support Activity intends to fundamentally review
the support structure for IETF's standards development process,
including possible new operational models, with a view towards improving
operational efficiency, support and management.
To that end, the IASA is exploring
On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Phill,
I'm not playing with words. The style of 'connection' involved in a
SIP session with proxies is very different from that of a classical
TCP session or a SOAP/HTTP/TCP session, or something using SCTP for
some signalling
John, Ray,
For
example, while I would not have expected the Secretariat to
round up a Ducks or equivalent vehicles to ferry people across
unexpected lakes and rivers (formerly believed to be roads) in
Dallas,
:-)
I would expect you to consider IETF-specific
arrangements for airport -
Hi all,
We are planning to talk about the routing and addressing
topic in Prague in a number of different meetings.
Wednesday 1830-1930, Plenary --
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/ietf-68/ietf68_roap_agenda.txt
This is a short report on where we are with this problem and what
aspects of it the
--On Friday, 09 March, 2007 22:22 +0200 Jari Arkko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I too would be interested in seeing information in the IETF
meeting page about, say, hotel's transportation service when
it exists and can be recommended. Or a warning about
unreliable taxis. John's list of
Hi Eric,
My take fwiw:
I personally don't believe that the slightly-inventive bit of
the stuff I sent to the patent lawyer should cover this I-D - at
the time, (and I've no records to help, sorry), we weren't blessed
with open source browsers and so we had to use proxies to insert
our
Total of 144 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 9 00:53:01 EST 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.81% | 17 | 12.26% | 113511 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.64% | 11 | 7.37% |68258 | [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We have IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses.
Doesn't this presume that if people used these locally assigned
addresses they would then NAT to a public address space?
I think the main thing folks might miss is that a lot of people really
I apologize for the tardiness of these comments: I planned to send this
email over a week ago but I experienced some computer issues ;-).
The definitions of both authenticator and peer refer to these as
'end of the link'; this seems just a bit too vague to me (after all,
what's at the end of a
Sam Hartman said:
The text changes you proposed were considered but are rather problematic
for existing protocols. I don't think we mind mandating changing protocols
for real problems but we do mind doing so if we
cannot understand the problem we're solving.
As far as I can tell, the text
Originally, someone asked:
% How does adding a downref to a dead document add more
% integrity to the RFC process?
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:39:35 -0500
John C Klensin john-ietf at jck.com wrote:
Independent of the merits in this particular case, it provides
history and context. We have
Fred Baker wrote:
I won't ask how many we have in the Czech Republic :-)
For much of central europe it's just a commute...
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
For better or worse, the centralized means of control you mention
may well come in the form of
the latest IPTV networks being built by large telco providers. As
telco battles cable for couch
potatoes, they've realized that mucking with television reception is
perhaps the best way to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think the main thing folks might miss is that a lot of people really
want all of this on a single address--while having multiple addresses
concurrent on a single machine is acceptable for larger machines,
specifically servers, having multiples
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all,
We are planning to talk about the routing and addressing
topic in Prague in a number of different meetings.
Wednesday 1830-1930, Plenary --
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/ietf-68/ietf68_roap_agenda.txt
This is a short report on where we are with this
From: David Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Nick Staff wrote:
I think the thing that would help IPv6 the most would be the setting
of a
hard date when no new IPv4 addresses would be issued. This would
make it
real for everyone and ignite the IPv6/IPv4 gateway
Well we don't yet know that the FCC deadline will actually stick when
society recognizes that many folks of low economic means are suddenly
w/o TV.
Secondly, the FCC's span of control is geographic ... not quite the same
as dictating an end to IPV4 addresses on a world wide basis.
In the low end
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Bi-directional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM) '
draft-ietf-pim-bidir-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Protocol Independent Multicast
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and
The IESG has received a request from the Long-Term Archive and Notary
Services WG (ltans) to consider the following document:
- 'Evidence Record Syntax (ERS) '
draft-ietf-ltans-ers-12.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks) to Informational RFC
Reply-to: ietf@ietf.org
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IESG has received a request from the IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks WG
(16ng) to consider the following document:
- 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks
The IETF Administrative Support Activity intends to fundamentally review
the support structure for IETF's standards development process, including
possible new operational models, with a view towards improving operational
efficiency, support and management.
To that end, the IASA is exploring
The IESG has received a request from the Centralized Conferencing WG
(xcon) to consider the following document:
- 'Connection Establishment in the Binary Floor Control Protocol
(BFCP) '
draft-ietf-xcon-bfcp-connection-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Protocol Independent Multicast MIB '
draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-10.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Protocol Independent Multicast
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Ross Callon.
A URL of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space '
draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Ross Callon.
A URL of
37 matches
Mail list logo
