On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses
of number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
It's already there in RFC 2050:
Thanks for the reminder.
3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
Hi Dave,
In response to your request for more interaction w/the IAB, here's a
peeve I've been developing lately and perhaps this outlet might be
appropriate for it.
There are some resources, like IP addresses and AS numbers, the proper
operation of which hinges on their uniqueness.
Generally,
Actually, the right thing is to read and comment on:
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-01.txt
(BGP Security Requirements) to the RPSEC mailing list
. Note that only members can post, so joining if
you're not already a member is a good idea.
The background is that solu
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've put the latest version of the Active Measurements BCP Internet
> Draft, that I mentioned during yesterday's Measurements panel,
> online at:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/home/henk/draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt
I think thi
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:36:27PM -0400, Derek Samford wrote:
> > Shane,
> > There is a practice on that (At least here.).
> > Generally we provide a Class C to our customers at no
> > additional charge, but
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rob Thomas wrote:
> Hi, John.
>
> > 192.88.99.0/24 which is the 6to4 anycast network. Do we really
> > want to be filtering that prefix?
>
> Good question. I'm re-reading RFC 3068 now, and the RFC appears to
> allow for the advertisement of this prefix into the global table
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> If by "round-robin" you mean by destination only, then this is
> correct.
The term "round-robin" refers to a schedule which cycles
through some number of things in a fixed order.
A packet arrives and the router makes a forwarding decision.
The thing
