oh
was I suppose to send that to majordomo? -ttyl, --chris DigitalAtoll BBS Webhosting http://digitalatoll.flnet.org/ Multi-Platform FTP - POP3 - SMTP Competively priced!
Re: Palladium (TCP/MS)
Wha? they go outlaw windows? Shareholders wont do non of that in realm of lawsuits because M$ the media done a good job at brain neutering the masses and furthering intellectual ejemitysp in the schools. Damn, I taking cis-2 and they concentrate in M$ details of operation and not on raw talent, teacher go ding you in the grade dept. if your comment block is not just so perfect... shit. --chris 11/1/02 7:15:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:10:59 EST, John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Sean Jones wrote: I understand where I went wrong. But I doubt that any commercial enterprise would want to block access to MS servers in RL. Well, it'd be a good way to inhibit people from sneaking Windows into the company. And in addition, not all the net is a commercial enterprise. There's a very large worldwide presence in the gov/edu/org arenas - and a *LOT* of those organizations have political, philosophical, or other reasons for blocking Microsoft. I'm sure there's privately held companies that can afford to have similar views - and I'm waiting for a shareholder suit against the board of a publicly held company for decreasing profits by continuing to permit the use a certain MUA even though it's one of the leading causes of virus and worm propagation... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Re: RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
.net is a suite of coding publishing tools. maybe should throw together a .org suite of freeware coding tools? 10/29/02 2:54:02 AM, Sean Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good Morning Valdis I have been cogitating on this for a little while. (Especially as I didn't want to sound thick when replying) Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when one will suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net etc In short the Microsoft-verse.
Re: TCP/IP Terms
I passed my midterm today, so let me give it a try.. LAYER 7 - APPLICATION - Your data manipulation applications :) LAYER 6 - PRESENTATION - compression, encryption, char translation LAYER 5 - SESSION - your connection manager interface (i.e. BSD sockets) LAYER 4 - TRANSPORT- data segmentation, with checksums LAYER 3 - NETWORK - Addressing (i.e. routing, routers.. or i like rooters) LAYER 2 - DATALINK - Bit-oriented encapsulation frames LAYER 1 - PHYSICAL - .,';,.ELECTRICAL SIGNALS.,';,. Segments are LAYER 4. Packets are LAYER 3. Frames are, duh, LAYER 2. Segments : also called PDUs, Protocol Data Units, a grouping of data gtom layers 7,6, 5 and provides reliability and error correction for transfer. --chris 9/27/02 3:49:32 PM, Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vint, Some of us at IETF are thinking about a draft to clear up some terminology about the different layers of TCP/IP. Whether it be packet, datagram, segement (more clearly defined) or whatever the case. Do you have any opinions on this?
Re: TCP/IP Terms
datagram is confuse.. well best i understand is the whole stack layers all rolled into one logical grouping. 9/27/02 3:49:32 PM, Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vint, Some of us at IETF are thinking about a draft to clear up some terminology about the different layers of TCP/IP. Whether it be packet, datagram, segement (more clearly defined) or whatever the case. Do you have any opinions on this?
Re: Guidance for spam-control on IETF mailing lists
Evil[1] is always the manipulator of good ideas. Evil[1] will fill the greater good, if we do not act now. by act now I do not want a whitelist that is publicly maintained. -Wonko the Sane [1]=U.C.E. At 07:11 PM 3/16/02 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: And if I'm going to read a list, I'd much rather it be well run than just easy to post to. I define well run as _both_ spam-free and lacking in moderation delays. I define well run as having a high signal-to-noise ratio, low moderation delay, a well-defined moderation policy that evaluates messages visibly and impartially without considering who authored them, and a low barrier to successful posting of relevant content - even by non-subscribers. Expecting contributors to explicitly add their addresses to a whitelist using obscure knowledge that is specific to a particular list or software or moderator, and completely unrelated to the knowledge required to contribute to the list, imposes an unacceptably high barrier. But if we somehow made this process uniform from one list to another, spammers would just add themselves to the whitelist. Keith p.s. though it is intriguing to consider - what if the instructions for commenting on a draft were embedded somewhere within that draft, so people would actually have to read it before commenting?
Re: PPP
Here is a question that will tax your synapes to bursting point! How is PPP and TCP/IP libs wired together? Like, DO I (OSI 8) call TCP and it calls IP and down the chain till it spills over and gets real physical (OSI 1)? I am confused. At 10:02 AM 3/5/02 -0500, you wrote: whoa, it's in the TCP/IP suite, it's not. So let me get this straight. TCP and UDP are part of IP. TCP provides error sum UDP doesn't and is therefore faster than TCP. They are encapsulated in IP, which is put into the data bitstream of a PPP frame. Layer 1 is the physical layer, are bitstreams sent at that level. BTW I have 56K dial-up no ISDN or DSL. - Original Message -
RE: y'all crack me up
woof, woof!looks like the old fidonet days. At 06:04 PM 2/28/02 -0500, Julia Finnegan wrote: Wooo hooo! Finally some action in this place... Right on. *Julia* -Original Message- From: Michael Allen Gelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:13 PM To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: y'all crack me up When I wrote to the IETF, it was to have a voice, in the event that Vernon Schryver has some input with regard to how things are done in the future. It certainly would be a huge injustice if this individual causes problems for small business operators for no valid reason. I had no idea my mail would become public, since I don't spend a lot of time on the Web. I have never subscribed to your mailing list. IETF did the same thing old Vernon did -- publicly post a private email. You *know* what is wrong with that. Out the other sides of your asses you tell people about Netiquette, don't you. Dweebs! I am really amused. I am really surprised at how juvenile and hateful some of you are. I have rec'd messages from about a dozen of you, calling me names and hurling false accusations at me. When I reply, my mail is returned. Several of you are grasping at straws to try to find some wrong doing that I have done. The fact is that I am a small business owner with high moral standards of honesty and treatment of my fellow human beings. I don't spam and I don't aid spammers. I don't speculate on domain names. My services have strict anti-abuse policies that, in one case, carries a monetary penalty. I cancel some accounts on the first complaint. Go ahead and write to me using acronyms you know I won't understand. Hell, one guy doesn't even know the meaning of ironic. Listening to Alanis Morisette music? She doesn't understand that word, either. If you can't understand in English, so be it. The fact is that you folks are losers and you're not too bright. I don't care how good you are at writing code and doing math -- you're losers. Y'all crack me up. I have a nice house, lots of money, a hot girlfriend, and I enjoy it all immensely. I also have the ability to imagine and create new things. Go ahead and hate me -- I can't say I blame you. I'm having sex with a beautiful woman and making money while not hurting anyone in any way. Have fun masturbating and writing abusive mail to a man who would teach you some respect, but as you know, can't reach you right now. - Mike someone wrote: are you claiming that domain speculation is a legitimate business? or for that matter, that NetSol is a legitimate business? as far as I'm concerned, they're both lower on the food chain than spammers.
Re: PPP
I kinda working on my own tcp/ip lib and this is how I interprete it. Your dumb terminal scripter makes connection that activates PPP (with LCP confsync) if that get an IP and return good then you can splat (encapulate) IP/TCP/UDP packets out the line er. and I must warn you I havnt got a working version so dont listen to me, I am a techno moron. Why do they call it TCP/IP ? that sound reversed. it should be IP/TCP-UDP as that makes sense in my head. At 02:25 AM 3/1/02 -0500, Bill Cunningham wrote: I have received several responses and most people say it's in the data layer, and a couple of people think it's in the network layer. I don't really pay much attention to the OSI model, I think it complicates the complicated. I try to focus more on TCP/IP. Does PPP establish a link, then terminate, or continue throughout session in UDP and TCP? I posted this question on the PPP mailing list with less familiaritive response than ietf general list. - Original Message - From: Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: Re: PPP At 03:55 AM 2/28/2002, you wrote: In what layer is PPP in the TCP/IP suite? I have read some of the other responses and it reinforces my belief that most people don't understand PPP's relationship to IP and either the 5-layer (internet) or 7-layer (ISO) models. PPP is really both the link and lower network layers. (The ISORMites discovered that layer three was really several layers in itself but found it difficult to say that the 7-layer model was really a 9-layer model so they created sublayers, i.e. layers 3A, 3B, and 3C. Something about Padlipsky comes to mind here.) The best way to think of PPP is a degenerate network of two nodes, not a link between two devices. If you think of it in this way, things like multilink and L2TP begin to make some sense. The problem occurs when people forget this. The way that I think of it is that the LCP negotiation represents configuration of the link layer while the NCP negotiation configuration at the network layer. And I continue to kick myself for allowing negotiation of multilink as part of LCP instead of doing it after authentication. I fear that this helped screw up L2TP too. I admit I caved to people who were worried about how long it took PPP to complete negotiation, something that just isn't very important. Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.530.676.1113 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
Re: OK... we thought we were running out of IPv4 address space *before*..
I have that. it is called a plastic case with little sub divisions for every different little lego peice. 8) Why a NetMicroWave? so THEY can see you roast when its sealant fail? And a netFridge... why would you wanna look at my moldy bread slice?!? (yes, I did leave it in too long. :( ) What they need to make is a NetGlovetm or sumthing, carry your PDA on your arm like a watch or replaces the watch. no losing it or sitting on it in your backpocket. (I havent dont that, but I know someone that did) hrm, netballs... n/m At 12:38 PM 1/30/02 -0500, Keith Moore wrote: OK.. TCP/IP in a refrigerator... a microwave... maybe. But Lego Blocks? just wait until you see the Lego Block MIB.
Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
Hrm, SoUL = Software Underwriters Laboratories but I thought the UL was a distinct company in it self that other companies send stuff to for testing. So some one withe means and clout in the industy needs to take it up. Suppose could put of a website like http://www.underwriters.org... hrm www.sul.org and gear it as a contact point for software testing. At 10:08 AM 1/23/02 -0600, Alex Audu wrote: Great idea, but you also should not leave out the issue of compliance testing. May be an organization like the Underwriters Laboratories,..or some other newly formed group (opportunity,.. anyone?) could take up the role of compliance testing. Regards, Alex. Franck Martin wrote: I support the idea, what needs to be done is the IETF to come with a trademark and someone to Inform the ISOC about all this discussion and also to register this trademark... Lynn, Could you please read this thread from the IETF archives, it could be interesting for the development of ISOC/IETF. Franck Martin Network and Database Development Officer SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission Fiji E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.sopac.org/ http://www.sopac.org/ Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/ http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/ This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily the views of SOPAC. -Original Message- From: Kyle Lussier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2002 4:04 To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification We need stronger enforcement of the RFC's, and we need creative thinking as to how to go about that. I like the idea of an easy in IETF Certified trademark, if you abuse it, it can be revoked, and then vendors building contracts around supporting IETF Certified products. It gives CIOs something to rattle about as well. I.e., they can require IETF Certification of products, which guarantees them standards support, as enforced by the IETF community. Just a simple precise trademark construct, with an easy-in application that costs maybe $100 per product, and supported by the IETF. That certification could be revoked down the road. IETF doesn't have to be a conformance body or litigator. It just merely needs to be the bearer of the one true mark :). Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned
Enginneering and computer science disipline are a joke. It seems ppl in these feilds all about ego and no documentation or worse terse confusing documentation. (eg rfcs) cut the crap and do something usefull. And yes, I am not helping here.. At 08:36 PM 1/6/02 -0600, Timothy J. Salo wrote: To: Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: one copy sent to list but THREE returned At 5:11 PM -0500 1/6/02, Gordon Cook wrote: I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned THREE to me. If everyone else got 3, my apologies. If anyone can inform me as to what happened i'd appreciate it. Er, a better question is why you spammed the IETF list at all. Oh, please. Compared to what? Megabytes of viruses? Long discussions about whether viruses should be filtered from the IETF mail list? Long discussions about whether IETF mail lists should accept e-mail only from subscribers? Repeated tirades against address translation? While Gordon is regularly fairly confused, he sometimes does provide a few interesting tidbits in his infrequent postings. The information content of his postings probably ranks at least average for IETF postings (I am sorry to say). It seems to me that Gordon's postings are the least of the challenges faced by the IETF mail list. -tjs
Re: Empowering the Customer or Empowering the Telco - State of the Internet 2002 (abridged) Published annually to the IETF list
Yes. but are these companies on each side understaffed or mismanaged? BLaH, BLaH, BLaH. YaDDaBLaH, BLaH BLaH. MumBo JumBo, JumBo MumBo. oBMuM, oBMuJ. _\\\__\\/_ o-o o-o C--+~ u At 04:24 PM 1/6/02 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: Empowering the Customer or Empowering the Telco State of the Internet 2002: Assessing the Technical, Economic and Policy Consequences Behind the Collapse of 2001 In its examination of the impact of Internet technology on global telecommunications during 2001, this report will bring into focus changes that are reshaping one of the world's largest and most
RE: Conference MIB
MIB = Managed Information Base I think... At 05:22 PM 1/2/02 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I am not aware of such a thing in the IETF. But then... I am not sure what exactly you mean with a Conference MIB. Bert
