You could start by looking at MANET work, both in the WG of that
name and work outside the IETF under that name and as ad hoc
networks (the mobile in MANET can be misleading, D for dynamic
might be mor to the point) and mesh networks. There are real
networks (such as the Freifunk network in Germany
On 30/Aug/11 04:50, Michel Py wrote:
>
> The mechanism (ICMP redirects) is technically fine and socially not.
> People have become paranoid and now they firewall everything. It is a
> behavioral animal. I'm not saying it's a good idea; the market answer to
> crossing firewalls is to encapsulate ev
> Worley, Dale R wrote:
> Someone says, Many deployed systems don't
> implement that mechanism correctly.
That's not what I said; the mechanism is deployed correctly, the problem
is that there is another layer on top of it (in that case, the Windows
Firewall, but it's not the only culprit) that pr
> From: Michel Py [mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us]
>
> > I'm no expert in this, but isn't this what ICMP Redirect messages
> > are for? Aren't routers required to generate them in these cases?
>
> Unfortunately, ICMP redirects are often broken. It is a well-known issue
> that the introductio
This sounds like yet another repeated cyclic centralization to/from
distribution viewpoint. The more things change, the more it remains
the same. Inevitably someone will get the bright idea to be more, to
consolidate more and once again offer central/services for its
surroundings and then at o
On 8/26/11 08:04 , Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> From: Adam Novak [interf...@gmail.com]
>>
>> "Say I wanted to send data to my friend in the flat next to mine. It is
>> idiotic that nowadays, I would use the bottleneck subscriber line to
>> my upstream ISP and my crippled upload speed and push it
On 8/26/11 14:08 , Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 13:57, Adam Novak wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a related-but-different example of how end nodes being able to
>>> know/discover direct paths to one another could be useful. Imagine a
>>> busy serv
On 8/27/2011 4:08 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
...
>> As long as they know
>> they're on the same subnet (and ARP broadcasts will reach everyone)
>> they should just ARP for each other and not involve the router at all.
>>
>> If they are on different IP subnets, but the same Ethernet,
>
> Yes, this is
On 2011-08-27 04:03, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:04, Worley, Dale R (Dale)
> wrote:
>> There must be at least a few hundred million mobile phones with data
>> capability, and a similar number of homes and small businesses with
>> WiFi systems. So we can estimate that a large f
> Worley, Dale R wrote:
> I'm no expert in this, but isn't this what ICMP Redirect messages
> are for? Aren't routers required to generate them in these cases?
Unfortunately, ICMP redirects are often broken. It is a well-known issue
that the introduction of Windows XP SP2 (a while ago) and the Wi
On 08/26/2011 13:57, Adam Novak wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> I have a related-but-different example of how end nodes being able to
>> know/discover direct paths to one another could be useful. Imagine a
>> busy server network with some web servers over here, s
> From: Doug Barton [do...@dougbarton.us]
>
> All of these systems are on the same network, same
> switch fabric, and have the same gateway address. In an ideal world I
> would like them to be able to know that they can speak directly to one
> another without having to go through the gateway (and
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> I have a related-but-different example of how end nodes being able to
> know/discover direct paths to one another could be useful. Imagine a
> busy server network with some web servers over here, some sql servers
> over there, etc. All of the
On 08/26/2011 10:20, David Morris wrote:
> I don't see this as a routing difficulty since the updated tables would be
> highly local to the edge routers which would only need to know about
> the more precise route between peers.
>
> BUT I see enormous issues in terms of providing the capability in
On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:04, Worley, Dale R (Dale)
> wrote:
>> There must be at least a few hundred million mobile phones with data
>> capability, and a similar number of homes and small businesses with
>> WiFi systems. So we can estimate that
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> > From: Adam Novak [interf...@gmail.com]
> >
> > "Say I wanted to send data to my friend in the flat next to mine. It is
> > idiotic that nowadays, I would use the bottleneck subscriber line to
> > my upstream ISP and my crippled upload speed
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:04, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> There must be at least a few hundred million mobile phones with data
> capability, and a similar number of homes and small businesses with
> WiFi systems. So we can estimate that a large fraction of a billion
> entries would be added t
> From: Adam Novak [interf...@gmail.com]
>
> "Say I wanted to send data to my friend in the flat next to mine. It is
> idiotic that nowadays, I would use the bottleneck subscriber line to
> my upstream ISP and my crippled upload speed and push it all the way
> across their infrastructure to my nei
I disagree with the fundamental premise of this concept, that it is a PROBLEM
that the Internet is not a network. Um, last I looked, the Internet is an
interconnection of networks. Not a network in that sense.
Edge devices can today, in the scenario you portray, pick the "best" network to
con
That is the difference between engineering and security engineering. In
normal engineering you are just trying to make something work. In security
engineering there is someone actively trying to break the system and use it
against you.
I don't quite see how this particular system was working, but
H ... bug detected to repair latency ?
... Man in the middle protocol vulnerability ?
... no end-end encryption?
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> I'm trying to imagine what the IP analogy is here. Prefix hijacking? If only
> Monoprix were using the RPKI!
> --Rich
I'm trying to imagine what the IP analogy is here. Prefix hijacking?
If only Monoprix were using the RPKI!
--Richard
On Sep 28, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3149962/Robbers-clean-up-with-vacuum.html
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3149962/Robbers-clean-up-with-vacuum.html
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
__
whether LSR3 can
re-route the path or ingress LER1 has to send a new PATH_MESSAGE to
egress LER2 to create a new path for
re-routing after time-out ?
2). In RSVP while using Shared Explicit STYLE where do we store the
information of the users which are using that
shared reservation ?
3). In RSVP there
~ :Hello
~ :
~ :I cannot understand the difference between routing and route discovery
~ :protocols. Is there any?
Yes. RDP is designed to discover default gateway(s) by broadcasting rdp
request packs. It's just a protocol, which lacks security implications by
the way (see l0pht.com advisory).
25 matches
Mail list logo
