Re: Presentation on IP address shortage
I can try pulling something together based on some of the numbers from the messages that followed... When would you need them? On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 14:05 -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFCyyyy on Definitions of Managed Objects for High Bit-Rate DSL - 2nd generation HDSL and Single-Pair High-Speed Digital Subscri
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 09:51 -0800, Bob Braden wrote: * A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. * ... * BCP NNN * RFC * * Title: Definitions of Managed Objects for * High Bit-Rate DSL - 2nd generation * HDSL and Single-Pair High-Speed Digital Subscriber * Line SHDSL Lines * Author: yy * Status: Experimental Think of it as a Happy Holidays greeting card from the staff of the RFC Editor. So... this would explain why the author field consists of y's men ? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-farrel-rtg-morality-requirements-00.txt
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 20:58 -0600, Spencer Dawkins wrote: From: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do the Morality ADs get to wear funny clothes? Inquiring minds want to know... I would love to be on NomCom when they open the envelope and read the desired characteristics for the position ... Oh, _that_ kind of position! Never mind.. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: MBONE access?
A nit, perhaps, but: On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 20:17 -0800, Ole Jacobsen wrote: ..Note that Real Player is available for multiple platforms for free, .. The Linux version, last I tried [8.0.3.412], didn't include support for multicast. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: proposal for built-in spam burden email privacy protection
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 16:53 +1200, Franck Martin wrote: I wonder if we could add to this list, that non digitally signed e- mails and invalid digitally signed e-mails get held for approval. I don't think that will scale too well when the list gets active. And white-listing someone once they're been approved gives the spammers a tidy list of which sender addresses to fake. Be liberal in what you accept should apply to the IETF mail server as well. I would be nice that the IETF members of this list show the way by enabling at least GPG or s/mime for digital signing of all their messages to the list. Don't get me wrong: encouraging people to use pgp is a good idea, but making it a requirement before accepting it is a policy decision that the end user should be making, not the list. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: full list for moderated list (was: CLOSE ASRG NOW IT HASFAILED)
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 07:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the original idea was better - to only have web archive of those posts that did not make it through to the main list... The downside of this approach, though, is that one would lose the context in which the discarded message was offered. OTOH,.. If technically easily possible I'd also suggest marking on the main index if post was denied by moderator or denied by spam filter. you'd want to differentiate between the two. And having this archive for only past 3 months seems just fine for that purpose. The spam, yes. The other, I'm not so sure -- if someone's making a charge of unfairness or whatnot, you need to keep that longer.
Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authorsto BCP
Sorry, everyone, I know that the horse is long dead but my wife is a tech writer: On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 06:22, Gibson, Mark wrote: Finally, last para of sectin 4.5, Mnemonics appearing in the Abstract and 'meaning of the mnemonics IP or TCP or MIB' -- you mean acronym, not mnemonic. Um, you mean abbreviation, not acronym. No such English word as ip, tcp of mib as far as I know :) Mnemonic, ironically, is actually closer in meaning since IP is kind of a de facto mnemonic for Internet Protocol. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=abbreviate*1+0 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=mnemonic*1+0 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=acronym*1+0 IP: _I_nternet _P_rotocol certainly qualifies as an acronym. The difference between an acronym and a mnemonic is that in the former, the letters used are really the first letters of the intended phrase. While mnemonics often use the first letter of other words, they'll often be unrelated to the subject. By way of an example that will make this message marginally IETF related, there was a pre-CIDR thought to use the 208.0.0.0/8 address space as 12-bit wide network masks. The mnemonic for this range was the C# class (C-sharp, for the black key between C and D on a piano). It was abandoned for CIDR since we all realized that this approach wouldn't, um, scale.
Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authorsto BCP
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 11:30, Lloyd Wood wrote: On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Frank Solensky wrote: On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 06:22, Gibson, Mark wrote: Finally, last para of sectin 4.5, Mnemonics appearing in the Abstract and 'meaning of the mnemonics IP or TCP or MIB' -- you mean acronym, not mnemonic. he should have said 'abbreviations'. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=abbreviate*1+0 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=mnemonic*1+0 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=acronym*1+0 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=acronym makes no mention of the abbreviation being pronounced. G.B.Shaw's line about two great countries being separated by a common language comes to mind -- I never realized that English and American had those distinctions before. Likewise, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abbreviation isn't limited to first letters of words.
Re: PPP
On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 12:20, Matt Crawford wrote: DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2In what layer is PPP in the TCP/IP= =20suite?/FONT/DIV/BODY/HTML Layer 271828 I should have exp()ected that
Re: OK... we thought we were running out of IPv4 address space*before*..
OK.. TCP/IP in a refrigerator... a microwave... maybe. But Lego Blocks? http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/rcx/legos/?n=2247 I'm trying to picture how they might build a recursive firewall.. --Frank
RE: Carrier Class Gateway
Oh, I don't know, the flag for G (I require a pilot) seems to describe us pretty well, also... Are you trying to imply we're rudderless??!!! No, no: Palm Pilots.. Maybe we could use 'A' (D(r)iver below, I am undergoing a speed trial) for b@ke@ffs.
RE: NYTimes.com Article: Manhunt Closes Mall of America
And I thought the last social was rough! -- Frank
Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Jiri Kuthan wrote: Hello, as the discussion departed from my original question to the favorite discussion on NAT/ipv6/etc architectural issues, I would like to re-raise the question: "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users who are behind firewalls and NATs?" Before it goes off into DNS name administration: None that I've heard of. From the perspective of those inside the NAT firewall, the fact that outside world can't tell the size of the hidden network is an advantage. One could ask a sample of administrators and extrapolate the results but, again, the problem becomes how confident you could be of the results if you don't get a very significant response rate (I tried something like this a number of years ago when attempting to estimate the proportion of assigned IPv4 addresses were actually being used: expect a healthy degree of skepticism if the queries are coming out of the blue). Even if that were possible or in a world without NATs, though: are you assuming a 1:1 mapping between IP addresses and 'users'? Between mainframes in one direction and folks surrounded by multiple machines in the other, which way do you go? Is there a 'user' associated with a web server; if so, what if you've got a load balancer in front? -- Frank
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Tony Dal Santo wrote: What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"? Hilarie Orman, Scott Marcus and I will be working together over the next few weeks to get a more up-to-date view of the world. As soon as we get something together, we'll announce it to the list. -- Frank
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Frank, This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much on the method used. I think we could react to the numbers more rationally if we discussed the method first. Sure thing. Would it make sense to spin this off as a separate list?
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
The IPv6 working group had given this proposal all due consideration back in April, 1996. From owner-ipng Thu Apr 25 12:22:25 1996 To: "vivek (v.) kapil" [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: (IPng 1631) Re: Adult/minor flag in the IPv6 header(was And now,... Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 15:18:49 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk "vivek (v.) kapil" writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Re: Government trying to put an adult/minor flag in the IPv6 header: This is, IMHO, a stupid idea. I would not support it. I would also argue that the government (in this case the US Government) does not have any jurisdiction here. Why do you think it is a stupid idea? IMHO, I personally think there should be a way to identify who is on the Internet. The kind of material that is floating on the Net is offcourse not for kids' poor eyes. I also think there should be a way to mark the contents for its level of obscenity so that those contents can be barred to appear in front of those who do not wish to see them. Besides, having an Adult/Minor flag makes it much easier for technically astute pedophiles to find targets, and I think we should help them as much as we can, since there is so much discrimination against pedophiles that giving them a leg up now and then is probably required by some anti-discrimination law out there. Also, I think we should have a whole raft of new flags. I would propose the following tags: Subversive/Not Subversive according to The Government of Iran The Government of Saudi Arabia The Government of China The Government of Singapore The Government of Libya The Government of Kenya The Government of the U.S. Offensive/Not Offensive to All Christians Catholics Calvinists Lutherans Baptists All Muslims Shiite Muslims Sunni Muslims Hindus Sikhs Jews Nazis White Supremicists Black Supremicists Colorblind People People with one arm (left) People with one arm (right) Gays Homophobes Lesbian Separatists IETF members Contains/Does not contain data advocating potentially offensive ideas: Individualist ideas Ideas advocated by the Democratic Party Ideas advocated by the Republican Party Ideas advocated by the Communist Party Ideas advocated by cattle mutilators Ideas advocated by Hillary Clinton Ideas advocated by Ayn Rand Ideas advocating human rights Any ideas that require thinking (offensive to stupid people) Packet is being transmitted by Someone under the age of 18 Someone under the age of 12 A Jew A Hindu A person who is known to advocate ideas considered subversive by the government of Burkina Faso Etc. Etc. I suggest, before we deploy IPv6 too far and cannot make major technical changes, that we have to put in a mandatory end to end option, initially with space 256 bits (but extensible via a frequency coding mechanism), to be called the "naughty bits", to indicate the presence of any such offensive material in the packet. The IANA will assign these bits to any group or individual who can articulate a criterion by which he might be offended. All routers MUST drop any and all packets not containing the "naughty bits". Folks have to agree first whether adult/minor flag should be legalized or not. Legalized! Pshaw! I advocate the immediate establishment of an international convention requiring the death penalty for any person or piece of artificially intelligent software transmitting a packet without all (and I mean ALL!) defined "naughty bits" asserted. This will make it easy for people to be protected as you advocate: I also think there should be a way to mark the contents for its level of obscenity so that those contents can be barred to appear in front of those who do not wish to see them. The advantage of my generalization of your scheme, however, is that it will permit the Government of Iran to permit data containing, say, suitably head-to-toe covered pictures of women to be transmitted to the country, but at the same time allow much less liberal governments to eliminate any such representational artwork, which, as you know, goes against the will of Allah, and also permit the pedonecrobestiophiles on the net to only allow packets containing pictures of young dead animals being buggered to pass through their firewall. The system in question is both necessary to permit the worldwide automated censorship regime we are all working hard to achieve and is technically feasible. I advocate the immediate formation of a working group to rapidly create a standard before its too late and more Iranian children are traumatized for life by seeing pictures of women without veils. Perry PS
Re: cats and lasers
Scott Bradner wrote: directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser this is exercise for cats that can see "invisible light" Which, as any cat owner can attest, covers most of them (and, yes, I know: "cat owner" is an oxymoron).
