Hi all,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments j
Elwyn,
Thank you for the in-depth review!
Authors, when will you be addressing these issues?
Jari
Elwyn Davies wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FA
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-mon
Hi Eric,
I would like to be part of that group.
My little network is connected to the internet
via a NAT router and I could not live without
it because daily renumbering wont do.
On the other hand that NAT-box is the biggest
obstacle between my network and IPv6.
I would like to help design a NA
I would encourage a discussion on what overall services and
architectures we are looking at for the future of the Internet. I see
mainly three camps, the ones being interested in situations where the
ISP is in strong control (and responsibilities) over quality,
addressing, services etc. I n
Am 22.11.2008 um 06:07 schrieb Fred Baker:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term
implications about what is being discussed.
Yes, there is a very clear a
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-pressure
>> group-think with no serious analysis of the long term implications about
>> what is being discusse
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term
implications about what is being discussed.
Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of
though
On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Eric Klein wrote:
We need a team made up of both sides to sit down, spell out what are
the functions of NAT (using v4 as a basis) and then to see if:
1. If they are still relevant (like number shortage from v4 is not
the same issue under v6 for example)
2. Do t
Hi Jaghori
Thanks for you response.
Actually R1 and R3 routers are our simulation routers. Simply those routers are
responding TCP packets and BGP messages to maintain the session with R2.
Our application simulates like BGP router.
Here R1 establishes IBGP connection against R2.
Similarly R3
10 matches
Mail list logo
