I, btw, just checked in at the Usenix Security Symposium and received
a very nice, durable, and usable, but still not too expensive bag with
a Usenix logo printed on.
That's much better than any T-Shirt.
You know how many times I go to conferences and end up just
leaving the bag or whatever the
This pretty much does it for me: anyone who says they are entitled
to participate in the IETF immediately goes into my spam bucket.
As others have pointed out, you've done yourself more harm than good.
I'm entitled to particpate, and I'm entitled to send email to the WG
chairs as a
As has been pointed out, this is a little more complicated than just
the choice of client, in particular multicast is not widely available
to the average Internet user.
But I still find it ironic that I can watch a webcast from an ICANN
meeting but I am unable to do the same for an IETF meeting
My suggestion: do what you did for Vienna. Vienna has the same rules:
U.S. citizens in possession of a valid U.S.-passport do not need a visa if traveling
to Austria as a tourist for a period not to exceed 90 days (visa waiver program).
-Kevin
The Korean embassy page that is linked to from the IETF meetings page
(http://www.koreaembassy.org/visiting/eng_visas.cfm) makes it
pretty darn clear that US folks should get a visa. They do have a
link from that page saying how wonderful US-Korea relations are, of
course.
What part are you
As for the network: Vienna has shown that it's possible to do better.
At the same time, with 1000+ people in a room performance isn't going
to be great. Poor network performance during plenaries and other
crowded sessions isn't the end of the world as long as the network
functions well
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
As long as we're bitching about the network: would it be possible to
start doing some unicast streaming of sessions in the future? Access to
multicast hasn't gotten significantly better the past decade, but
streaming over unicast is now
This is not the solution.
I'm not going to change the technology that I use because we haven't been able to
setup a good network here. We should learn from the mistakes and do it better next
time, as we know it worked in Vienna.
I use b or g, because is what I carry with me, and I will not
Awesome!!!
-Kevin
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 11 17:46:49 2003
From: Brett Thorson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [58crew] Network Status - 11/11/03 1922 Local Time - Penalty Box
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:24:43 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
The number of users who are
There is an AODV test running but it requires, uh, running AODV. See:
http://moment.cs.ucsb.edu/aodv-ietf
It actually has nothing to do with the evil that is MSFT's ad hoc. And,
it also works if you get everything configured correctly.
However, it is currently shutdown until the wireless
The IETF wireless network is now relatively stable so we are going to
turn on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] test network. We'll monitor it over lunch and
make sure it doesn't interfere with the rest of the wireless
infrastructure.
If anyone notices any abnormal degredation of performance, let us
The problem being tackled isn't completely clearly defined, but the
general philopshy is that multicast is not being deployed because most
potential receivers are using ISPs that don't supply multicast
service. The proposal is that we need some form of auto-tunnelling
protocol which would
San Francisco is very convenient for many people (including me) - but
perhaps it's just *too* convenient. Every other IETF meeting held in the
Bay Area in recent years has been a zoo.
I thought there was consensus to try not to hold IETF meetings in the Bay Area?
Ross.
I didn't think
Multicast is necessarily a LOT weaker:
1) I can get a copy of packets by normal operation
(join a group). there is no equivalent for UDP,
notably for paths that aren't shared.
Again, not in all cases. You over-simplify the effectiveness of scoping.
You can't have it both
BTW, slightly better than just not showing up is watching the
multicast feed.
In fact, the more people who choose to participate this way
will indeed serve to make a justification to make this better,
i.e. real-time feedback from the network, etc.
And before anyone starts whining about not
This might be heresy, but I continue to wonder if all of that effort put
into multicasting meetings is actually being put to good use. Last I
knew, multicast connectivity was spotty all over the globe, the tools
for using the multicast were hard to come by for many platforms, and
the
Doing even a small number of sessions all day for four days is a major
logistical effort that currently involves around 20 volunteers including
at current count something like 7-9 students...
Just to re-iterate what Joel said... we are doing things differently
this IETF than we have in the
I've been frustrated by the need to modify core routers to support
multicast properly, and the resulting reluctance of the ISPs to deploy it.
Perhaps it's time to interpret this as damage, and route around it?
Yes. Current multicast doesn't scale.
I agree with the first set of
Sorry, I could not find an answer or a pointer through
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/multicast.html
My provider said that it supports mbone, but only enable it on demand
for specific addresses. Therefore, could anyone please inform me the
multicast group addresses of the coming 47th
19 matches
Mail list logo
