There are choices, such as making connection initiation, connection acceptance,
and connection termination parsable by network elements on the path so state
can be established, maintained, and cleared, DoS can be identified, and so on.
The decision was to hide all that from network elements.
-
Yes, other than AT&T increasing their permitted incoming UDP traffic -- the
easiest thing AT&T can do -- AT&T could ask the vendor of their flow
restricting device to use bi-directional UDP traffic on same 5-tuple to
indicate "desire to receive", rather than solely examining incoming UDP traffic
I help run a community machine (not for my employer) and we've been trying
unsuccessfully for a month to get off AT&T's email blacklist; their automated
systems claim we're off, but mail is still being blocked. Can an AT&T
postmaster drop me an email to help work through this?
Thanks.
-d
On Apr 2, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's common wisdom that a datagram that needs to be fragmented between
> endpoints (because it is bigger than the path MTU) will demonstrate less
> reliable delivery and reassembly than a datagram that doesn't need to be
> fragmented
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Oosting [mailto:eric.oost...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:06 AM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
>
> Let me start out by saying I'm allergic to CGN, but I got to ask the
> question:
>
> Some of the CGN providers are co
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:43 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Leigh Porter'; 'David Israel'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> >>
> >> Good point,
> One can do that with or without NAT. This claim that one cannot
> keep a network running without a service provider connected if you
> don't run NAT is a myth of dubious origin.
If the hosts are running DHCP, and the ISP is running the DHCP
server? I guess they will fall back (after a while) to
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16 AM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> > I'm going to have to deploy NAT444 with dual-stack real soon now.
>
> you may want
> -Original Message-
> From: jean-francois.tremblay...@videotron.com [mailto:Jean-
> francois.tremblay...@videotron.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:06 AM
> To: d...@cluenet.de
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Randy
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
> David Israel wrote, on 09/07/2011 04:21 PM:
> > In theory, this
> > particular performance problem should onl
> -Original Message-
> From: Leigh Porter [mailto:leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:38 PM
> To: David Israel; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: NAT444 or ?
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Israel [mailto:da...@otd.com]
> > Sent: 07 Sep
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian de Larrinaga [mailto:c...@firsthand.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:05 AM
> To: Cameron Byrne
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?
>
> I wonder if the discussion as useful as it is isn't forgetting that the
> edge of
...
> The striking thing I picked up is that NTT considers the CGN equipment
> a big black hole where money goes into. Because it won't solve their
> problem now or in the future and it becomes effectively a piece of
> equipment they need to buy and then scrap "soon" after.
It would get scrapped w
> -Original Message-
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:g...@apnic.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:27 PM
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org list; Daniel Roesen
> Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
>
>
> On 08/09/2011, at 2:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -Original Messa
> -Original Message-
> From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@seven.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:10 AM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Owen DeLong
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: RE: Yahoo and IPv6
>
> >
> > Because that way the IPv4 and IPv6 swarms remain disconnected in the
> > absence of so
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundem...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:17 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Owen DeLong; Benson Schliesser; NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01
> > That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44
> > with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN.
>
> it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors
> of
Running out of ban
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 12:59 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Benson Schliesser'; 'NANOG list'; 'ARIN-PPML
> List'
> Subject: Re: [ari
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:55 PM
> To: Benson Schliesser
> Cc: NANOG list; ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an I
> On 1/6/2011 9:28 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
> >> Not really. Imagine the case where you're on IPv6 and you can only
> >> reach
> >> IPv4 via a NAT64, and t
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matt...@matthew.at]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 6:55 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: Nanog Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
>
> On 1/6/2011 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Doesn't all of this be
21 matches
Mail list logo
