On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> On the technical side, I believe that there was a general belief
> in 1993 that we would be able to map out a unified, clear, transition
> strategy for IPv6 and give simple advice about it.
John is correct in terms of belief (but perhaps a bit
Continue Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:02/06/2013
Reviewed I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03
Reviewer Comment A2: Referencing the NHDP and related to RFC6130
++
I think if we got an
cb.list6 wrote:
> I think there is something here that is interesting, and that is the
> interplay between paper design, evolution, and ultimately the emergent
> complex dynamical system we call the internet ... which is almost
> completely zero compliant to the e2e principle. Not that e2e is the
Arturo Servin wrote:
> Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
> tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
> was not as important as a central port to give IP address.
A merit to have the central server is that you don't have to
w
On Jun 1, 2013 11:52 AM, "John C Klensin" wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I really need to stop posting to this thread -- I have other
> things to do and I don't believe the conversation is leading to
> anything actionable. Second-guessing is fairly useless at this
> point and there are at least a few thin
Brian,
I really need to stop posting to this thread -- I have other
things to do and I don't believe the conversation is leading to
anything actionable. Second-guessing is fairly useless at this
point and there are at least a few things that we know in
retrospect that we couldn't have known in 19
On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 15:00, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Friday, May 31, 2013 17:23 -0700 Randy Bush
>> wrote:
>>
>>> < rant >
>>>
>>> the sad fact is that the ietf culture is often not very good at
>>> listening to the (ops) customer. l
> I was working on TCP/IP, Novell and AppleTalk nets in the mid 90s and
> as network engineers we hated to maintain a database of static IP
> addresses for users, and we loved how AT for example was totally
> automatic (IPX was in the middle because we also hated the long addresses).
>
> But any h
Arturo Servin wrote:
> No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
> db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
> the same IP to two or three different hosts.
So, it's like HOSTS.TXT.
> It was a nightmare.
Yes, it was.
> With IPX
Kind of.
Those were different times. At least us we were not so preoccupied by
tracking users, accounting, etc. So a central point to record IP address
was not as important as a central port to give IP address. So both
solutions would seem useful to me at that time (as I said I wa
No, I meant a table of static ip addresses (possibly it was in excel,
db2, or any other old database) for each host so we do not configured
the same IP to two or three different hosts. It was a nightmare.
With IPX, AT address assignment was automatic. No DHCP in those old
times.
Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Even at that time and even on small end user LANs, it is
>> better to let the gateway manage the address configuration
>> state in centralized fashion than to have, so called, SLAAC,
>> which is full of address configuration state, which is
>> maintained in fully distribute
Masataka,
On 6/1/13 6:51 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
>> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
>> "dumb" devices that only need to know their network and gateway
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:51 AM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
>> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea,
Thanks Mark,
This is very interesting results, it is ok if not 100% correct which I
think the error can be less than 10%, but I may have different
analysis of results. You concluded that homes in Europe had better
shortest distances to IETF meetings (assuming that thoes homes have
full participati
Doug Barton wrote:
> Not picking on you here, in fact I'm agreeing with you regarding the
> early days. In '94 SLAAC/RA was a good idea, and remains a good idea for
> "dumb" devices that only need to know their network and gateway to be
> happy.
Wrong.
Even at that time and even on small end
16 matches
Mail list logo
