Patrik Fältström wrote:
You can find my photos from IETF-59 in Seoul here:
http://alexandria.paf.se/ietf-59
paf
Patrik:
Thank's so much for the nice pictures... I too could not
attend due to my travel schedule... it is almost like
being there (without the jet-lag :-D)
R
--
Randall R.
Noel:
Comments in line :-
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course, multiple A records works, is out there, and have worked for
years. But they worked better before we introduced routers (i.e., when
the hosts with multiple A records really had
Dave Crocker wrote:
John,
JJCK Of course, multiple A records works, is out there, and have
JCK worked for years. But they worked better before we introduced
JCK routers (i.e., when the hosts with multiple A records really had
JCK interfaces on different networks). Today, it effectively
JCK
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-jan-04, at 23:47, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
- increased overhead compared to TCP
Ok lets see. SCTP takes on average 4 more bytes per data packet then
TCP. However, if the TCP implementation enables timestamps then
that is not true and TCP takes more
Dave:
Comments in-line below..
Dave Crocker wrote:
John,
JCK but the only realistic solution for someone who needs high
JCK reliability in that environment is multihoming, and there seems
JCK to be no hope for multihoming of small-scale networks with IPv4.
There is not much of a solution,
John C Klensin wrote:
Dave,
Just to pick a small nit or three...
--On Wednesday, 28 January, 2004 07:36 +0900 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
JCK but the only realistic solution for someone who needs high
JCK reliability in that environment is multihoming, and there
seems JCK to
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-jan-04, at 22:00, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
In other words, when there is a serious solution to
multihoming -- ie, being able to preserve a connection when
using more than one IP Address -- it will likely work for IPv4.
Yes.. SCTP solves the problem
Haim:
If I understand your problem correctly I would think
the closest thing to this is what sigtran has done with
SS7 over IP..
They use SCTP and use its stream feature to avoid
head of line blocking for the various calls.. I am not
sure if they put each call in its own stream or each SLS
in its
Paul Robinson wrote:
I think if we say From the middle of next year, no more IPv4 RFCs or drafts
please, then vendors and application developers will have to sit up and
take notice. Remember, the protocols take between 6-36 months to be deployed
for real, so what we'd actually be saying is we
Pekka Nikander wrote:
vinton g. cerf wrote:
We would also want to look very carefully at the potential spoofing
opportunity that rebinding would likely introduce.
Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote:
This is one of the reasons the authors of ADD-IP have NOT pushed to
get it done.. some more
work
vinton g. cerf wrote:
I am a strong proponent of trying to find a way to create a new set of end identifiers that would be insensitive to the changing of IP level addresses. It seems to me that we would find ourselves working pretty hard to tease apart the current strong binding of IP and TCP
Dave Crocker wrote:
Randall,
RRSh Now of course if the application wants to be aware, it can subscribe to
RRSh events that let it know that it happened.
That sounds remarkably like a presence service.
No, what it is is a socket call you make that subscribes do address
events on the socket.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Randall,
RRSh Now of course if the application wants to be aware, it can subscribe to
RRSh events that let it know that it happened.
That sounds remarkably like a presence service.
No, what it is is a socket call you make that subscribes do address
events on the socket.
Keith Moore wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
In the ongoing saga about topology reality vs. application perception of
stability, it occurs to me we are not working on the right problem. In
short we have established a sacred invariant in the application / transport
interface, and the demands on
Ok,
A very very late response to this thread... or at least part of
this thread, for some reason a while back I was knocked
off of the ietf list and thus only get things cc'd to the ipng list :-0
(and yes, I could re-subscribe but... I get so much email its hard enough
keeping up... sigh..)
Now,
15 matches
Mail list logo
