[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The thousands of bilateral BGP peering contracts are most
> definitely comparable to the email peering that I am
> proposing.
Dude, it's 2005. You can put down the X.400 crack pipe now.
---Rob
Of course, there's already one application-level messaging
protocol that relies extensively on arranged peerings: Usenet.
Usenet doesn't rely on a *full* N-way mesh of arranged peerings,
it relies instead on a core of fairly well interconnected
"backbone" or "core" news sites who've agreed to d
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
You're lost in the past. Study history and stop repeating it back to us.
Although I agree that email peering is a seriously bad idea, I don't
think that the analogy to uucp is correct.
You're righ
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >You're lost in the past. Study history and stop repeating it back to us.
> Although I agree that email peering is a seriously bad idea, I don't
> think that the analogy to uucp is correct.
You're right -- I left out the routing table bit, which
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd Vierling writes:
>
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
>> > current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
>> > model, with only a few big actors.
>>
>>
Can someone with verisign operations please contact me offlist.
Thanks!
--
/m
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
model, with only a few big actors.
I don't know who these proponents are, that you re
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
> > current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
> > model, with only a few big actors.
>
> I don't know who these proponents are, that you refer to. Howev
Folks,
This might not turn out to qualify under the precise term of "peering" but I
like the general implication that things are not entirely open and that there
are service criteria.
> ...I described how it could be done so
> that email peering IS NOT LIMITED to a few big actors.
>
> W
Far not, I have nothing to add on the "e-mail peering" hand-waving,
but...
On 2005-06-16, at 11:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the BGP peering side of the business can sort out all of
this stuff, then why can't the email side of the business do
the same, or perhaps, do even better?
It's
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the BGP peering side of the business can sort out all of
this stuff, then why can't the email side of the business do
the same, or perhaps, do even better?
It's not comparable, as has been explained several times to you.
Perhaps you have nev
On Jun 16, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
2a) Get the client to form a BGP session with the cisco3550 and
announce there network(s) to it. The cisco3550 announces our internal
address range to the client. Over the top of the this another BGP
(multihop) is setup between the client and
> >If the BGP peering side of the business can sort out all of
> >this stuff, then why can't the email side of the business do
> >the same, or perhaps, do even better?
>
> It's not comparable, as has been explained several times to you.
Perhaps you have never been involved in BGP peering? Let
The number of agreements needed in the email world is significantly
higher than what is needed for BGP.
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
model, with only a few big actors.
* [EMAIL PROTECT
On 16/06/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
> current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
> model, with only a few big actors.
>
> "Should anyone be allowed to operate an email system? P
> > The number of agreements needed in the email world is significantly
> > higher than what is needed for BGP.
>
> The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
> current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
> model, with only a few big actors.
I do
> The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from the
> current model (millions of independant email servers) to a different
> model, with only a few big actors.
and, as unlikely as it may seem, they think they should be those
actors.
randy
Hi,
I'm wondering what seen as best practice in this network layout:
cisco6500 Network Cloud cisco3550 --- Client
The client needs a full BGP feed, which of course the 3550 is unable to
provide, but the cisco 6500 can. The network cloud is relatively simple,
and is running IP.
Th
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:32:31AM +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> The number of agreements needed in the email world is significantly
> higher than what is needed for BGP.
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from t
19 matches
Mail list logo
