FWIW, I'm roaming with my U.S. AT&T (AWS) SIM just fine here in Seoul. It
took less than 5 minutes to pick up the phone at the airport with a
pre-reservation.
At 04:36 PM 2/27/2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
t-mobile usa doesn't appear to have a roaming agreement with anyone.
t-mobile germany has one
At 04:59 PM 2/25/2004, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Quick answer: Euro-style round-pin plugs
Long answer: The official Korean plug is 4.8 mm in diameter whereas the
Euro-plug is 4.0 mm. This means you *could* encounter some "loose
connections" unless you use the European *grounded* plug which *is* 4.8
mm a
Also as a frequent visitor, I'll post my favorite money and time saving
travel tip. Get a JR East rail pass *before* you travel to Japan. It's much
cheaper that way. Surf to http://www.jreast.co.jp/eastpass/index.htm to
find out details.
I would also plan ahead as much as possible as we will b
At 10:36 AM 3/6/2002, John Stracke wrote:
> >No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for
> >sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or
> >working documents.
>
>(a) The publicly available working documents may not be up-to-date.
They are up t
No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for
sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or
working documents. If I stand up (physically or virtually) in an IETF
meeting and say "the ITU-T is doing such and such", you can either believe
me or
At 05:59 AM 5/23/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > What about months of work
> > wasted because a WG didn't get the input of those driven away by spam?
>
>that's equally as bad as the months of work wasted because the WG
>didn't get the input of someone driven away by the spam filter, of course.
K
At 07:18 AM 3/29/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> when will you be hosting?
> > I've done it 1.5 times myself. How about you?
>
>2002, i believe. working on it now.
Good for you. I should mention that the one I hosted was a heck of a lot of
work. One of the results was that I now have a awful lot o
At 07:32 PM 3/28/2001, Randy Bush wrote:
> > So Ole, Cisco will be hosting an IETF there when?
>
>i think they co-hosted with qualcomm in san diego justthe other month.
>
>when will you be hosting?
I've done it 1.5 times myself. How about you?
P.S., it was a joke Randy.
Let's see, the price is right, the convention center has plenty of room,
there are loads of hotel rooms nearby. Hmm. Sounds great!
So Ole, Cisco will be hosting an IETF there when?
At 05:41 PM 3/28/2001, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote:
>OK, I'll bite:
>
>Kuala Lumpur which we just used for APRICOT 2001
To give Baree and other who didn't attend Minneapolis an idea, the main
hotel (Hilton) has hundreds of rooms and the IETF cost was $129 per night.
Surrounding the main hotel within a short walk are other hotels totalling
over 1500 rooms. In the Minneapolis Hilton we had thousands of square feet
At 03:14 PM 3/20/2001, Phil Karn wrote:
> >What's really ironic in your mentioning this (in a deju vu thread) is
> >that the Dow first hit and closed above 10,000 when we were here in
> >1999. I remember watching for it on (probably) the same sign.
>
>Gee, you noticed this too, huh?
>
>As for the
At 08:53 AM 1/22/2001, Henning G. Schulzrinne wrote:
>Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > The ISOC isn't a trade association, which is where such seals
> > of approval (and the associated b*ke-offs) tend to come from.
>
>Maybe the IPv6 consortium or whatever they call themselves could do
>this, since IPv
without "transparent" caches
>- no port restrictions
>- no NATs
>
>(and whatever other abominations one might want to add to this list).
>Seems like a good role for ISOC, for example :-)
>
>Matt Holdrege wrote:
> >
> > At 11:47 AM 1/21/2001, Daniel Senie
At 11:47 AM 1/21/2001, Daniel Senie wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Let's stamp out NAT, *now* - before it becomes too entrenched and we can
> > never get rid of it. We don't need that sort of "worked" again.
>
>Ummm, it's FAR too late for that. As for numbers of users, it's my guess
>a la
At 05:39 PM 1/21/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
> > >NAT is an architecturally bankrupt strategy - the more you try to fix
> > >it, the more complex the architecture becomes, the harder it becomes to
> > >write and configure applications, and the the more brittle the network
> > >becomes. There is no w
At 11:53 PM 1/20/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
> > But complaining about NAT is not a new fad and usage of NAT hasn't been
> > stemmed the tiniest bit. We can't keep burying our heads in the sand and
> > trying to deny new work on dealing with NAT. It's here, it isn't going away
> > and we have to find
At 02:38 PM 1/20/2001, Jim McMurry wrote:
>Then it seems we will have to create an ever expanding bandwidth to support
>all the overhead associated with NAT and these multiple layers.
The overhead comes in the form of complexity rather than bandwidth.
But complaining about NAT is not a new fad a
>> Excellent. We've agreed that IPv6's problems are a subset of IPv4's.
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>unfortunately, we have not shown it is a proper subset. e.g. the larger
>address space may exacerbate issues already causing problems in v4, such as
>the increasing number of routes
At 05:10 PM 12/19/2000, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > Nothing personal Frank, but in a general sense I'd say you weren't doing
> > your job well enough.
>
>easy to say if you have not been and AD
>Frank was a good AD and managed WGs as well as any of us (and better than
>many)
>yet getting people out
At 08:07 AM 12/19/2000, Frank Kastenholz wrote:
>At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >We can also end the de facto practice of
> >using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared
> >presentations of the material already in the I-Ds. While
> >tutorials are a fine thing,
Folks should read and *refer* to the NAT WG documents before commenting. An
awful lot of work was put into the content and wording of these documents.
RFC 2663
draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-06.txt
&
RFC 2993
At 02:45 PM 7/18/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt
>Holdrege wr
>ites:
> >At 11:50 AM 7/18/00 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> >>next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England
> >>
At 11:50 AM 7/18/00 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England
>http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt
>
>if you turn up at customs with a laptop, you may be asked to show any
>and all files on it to the nice chaps there. if someone ha
>I don't know about you, but it scares me to read the various forecasts
>about how wireless will transform the landscape over the next few
>years. E.g., more wireless phones with internet connectivity than
>PCs. The numbers are just staggering and the associated demand for
>addresses will be asto
At 12:55 PM 4/25/00 -0400, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>The basic key *architectural* problem with NAT (as opposed to all the
>mechanical problems like encrypted checksums, etc, some of which can be
>solved with variant mechanisms like RSIP), as made clear by Keith's comments,
>is that when you have a
At 12:39 PM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> > At 09:59 AM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> > >This draft is very incomplete and in my opinion not ready for prime
> > >time. The working group has in the past requested lists of protocols
> > >and applications which do not work with NAT
ugh contributions such as yours to get a
reasonable document together that folks can reference.
Thanks for your help.
-Matt Holdrege
At 10:31 AM 4/7/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > As we have done with the NAT WG, it is
> > often useful to accurately document the drawbacks of a
> > common practice as well as to encourage exploration of
> > alternatives.
>
> From my point of view there were significant forces within the
>NAT gr
At 04:08 PM 3/4/00 -0500, Marcus Leech wrote:
>Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> >
> >
> > I hope the 128 bit "gold" cards use a longer IV..
> >
> > - Bill
>Does anyone know if the 128-bit variant of WEP is openly specified anywhere?
The last I heard RC4 was
At 09:23 AM 2/9/00 -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>Prior. Definitely prior; that way folks don't have to spend the first
>half of the week hacking support for the 802.11 DS card into NetBSD,
>Linux, BSDI, et. al. :-)
There is a neat FAQ at http://www.wavelan.com/products/faq/ and one of the
FA
At 10:05 PM 12/7/99 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Tripp Lilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think NATs are architecturally "correct", but I think they're
> > teaching us an important lesson about the (initially valid) assumptions
> > about end to end connectivity. Even after we era
I don't quite agree. The NAT WG list is primarily for achieving the
milestones of the NAT WG. The IETF list is for discussing overall IETF
issues which is what we are (mostly) doing. The discussion which is taking
place among some very well experienced IETF'ers, crosses several working
groups.
;m editing. If
you know of any particular protocol that has difficulty with basic
Network Address Translation, please send me the info in the format
of the above draft.
- Matt Holdrege - NAT WG co-chair
33 matches
Mail list logo
