Re: Last calling draft-resnick-on-consensus
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Jari Arkko wrote: You should see a last call announcement soon, and both me and Pete look forward to your feedback. As a semi-newbie (2 meetings, a few years worth of remote participation), I found this document useful. It clearified my understanding of "rough consensus". I am sure the document can be made even better (there have been good suggestions in this thread), but I fully support a document of this kind being published in some manner (I don't have an opinion if it should be BCP or Informational RFC or something else). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Charging remote participants
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Janet P Gunn wrote: I have never felt "ignored" as a remote participant. Sometimes misunderstood because there is little opportunity to expand and explain when you are remote. But never ignored. I have no idea what you mean by "hides information". Are you suggesting that someone is censoring mailing list posts? It's my experience that different WG mailing lists handle remote participation very differently. I have put it down to a difference in common working method of the people participating in different WGs. Some WGs tend to accumulate people who are very used to remote participation and discussion, others seem to accumulate people who have a different history so they tend to handle posts very differently. Perhaps that's why the view on how well this works is so different between different people? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
RE: Regarding call Chinese names
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Zhongxin (Victor) wrote: BRAVO, techies not speaking Chinese would no longer mispronounce “Huawei” as the name of some U.S state. I have asked Huawei staff how it's pronounced and I think I get it fairly right. People who hasn't, might get confused because when I use that pronounciation it's not the prevelant pronounciation. About your example, there are plenty of places in the US with french origins, and in US english, these are pronounced differently than in french. What's correct? Perhaps if Huawei would call itself Whow-wei in latin characters more people would get it right, if this is a really sensitive issue. Linux has similar issue, Linus Torvalds native language is swedish, but he's also a native finnish speaker: <http://danielmiessler.com/blog/dont-ever-argue-again-about-the-pronunciation-of-linux> How many english speakers pronounce Linux correctly? Linus' first name? In what language? Do native chinese get it right? Is it really worth spending time debating it? My name is pronounced differently in english and in swedish, just like Linus' name is. I don't get upset when people get it "wrong". Btw, it's pronounced Mii-ka-el in swedish (where the ii is a long version of the initial sound in "industry"). So while I read with interest the documents presented in the original post in this thread, I don't expect to understand and remember all of what's in them. Are these documents intended to be published as informational RFCs (it says "intended status: informational")? Are we intending to have one for each 'major' language in the world? Where is the cutoff for 'major' status of a language? Should the IETF really publish documents about human languages that doesn't really have anything to do with Internet Engineering? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Jari Arkko wrote: But back to the topic. I, for one, would like to see responses on IETF last calls. It builds my confidence that we know enough about the topic to make an approval decision. Particularly when the input comes from people outside the working group. And I'd like to distinguish "everyone thinks this is fine" from "no one read the document". Should people who supported the document within the WG LC generally avoid voicing support in the IETF LC discussion? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Stephen Farrell wrote: There is no need to wait for a nearby meeting. I'd say starting to participate via email makes such a meeting far more likely if participants turn up and do good technical work. It's my experience that non-native english speakers are more comfortable exchanging text than speaking. I've met several people who write excellent english but who it's difficult to communicate with verbally. So if language is considered a barrier, would having an IETF meeting there really help? I feel overall that outreach by a few people would be more effective in bringing in people to start doing work via email (and perhaps, teleconferencing), and then where there is a few more people active in South America, then a physical meeting there would be more effective? As a Fidonet user from the late 1980:ties, I felt the IETF had a really low barrier of entry. What would a 20-30 year old who started to use the Internet 5-10 years ago feel about it? I don't know. What is the target audience? A telecommunication professional? A student who might be a would-be telecom profession? An App programmer? All of the above? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IETF Meeting in South America
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Jorge Amodio wrote: One thing that could help is if some companies like Cisco, Google, Juniper, etc, with presence in the region start sponsoring some individuals that have been participating or are interested to participate at IETF so they can have more time and financial resources. My take on this is that it would be a good start if someone (not limited to the list above, ICANN for instance?) could do more "marketing" for IETF, perhaps identifying universities with courses that cater towards network engineering, making sure they know how Internet standards are developed and how to participate. Where is a good "executive summary" to give to upper management, outlining why they should dedicate resources towards participating in the IETF? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: article on innovation and open standards
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote: I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties outside of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting input from those parties, and explicitly considering that input in their deliberations. Some WGs do this, but for most WGs I don't think it happens often enough or formally/transparently enough. I agree. I'm also participating on nanog-l and other operator lists, and it's very rarely that a WG solicits feedback in those kinds of forums. Question is, if larger feedback is requested, a lot of the time a larger feedback will be generated, and more work needed to go through this feedback and answer it. End result might be better, but overall workload would be up, both in preparation phase and when feedback is coming in. I'm sure end result would probably be better, but more work would be needed, probably resulting in less technical work being done. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: article on innovation and open standards
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote: Yes, I'm aware that some people (including myself) have effectively participated on occasion without doing either of the above. But I think it's hard to effectively participate in IETF on a regular basis without a significant investment in both time and money. Personally I've only been on a single physical IETF meeting. I participate mainly via mailing lists. And yes, it's hard to participate without spending (significant) time. I don't know how else this could be done though. It's at least my opinion that if time is made available, the barrier of entry is probably the lowest of any similar organisation I can think of. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: article on innovation and open standards
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Dale R. Worley wrote: The critical difference is that the IETF is an organization of *buyers* rather than an organization of *sellers*. Not that I have been active in the IETF that long (only a few years), but IETF is pretty vendor-heavy. Otoh hand the whole point with IETF is that *nobody* is *excluded*, it consists of all interested parties and the barrier of entry is really low. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, John Curran wrote: This approach works fine if one presumes that the problem is always just the customer (i.e. their ISP is actively interested in helping solve the problem.) For ISPs who are not as interested (or may have an actual motivation to hinder resolution of the problem), this will not work. Well, I would also like to see reputation done on per-ISP level. If an ISP doesn't care, then the reputation of all the customers behind that ISP is lower. While the above situation has also been somewhat true with IPv4, it is definitely the case with IPv6, since the typical address space allocation sizes provide ample space for whitewashing customers into new prefixes. As a result, it is questionable whether any IPv6 address-based reputation system can be successful (at least those based on voluntary principles.) This is absolutely a problem. I encourage all ISPs to give customers the same addresses all the time, and publish if they provide dynamic. This is one more factor which should be included in the publication (static/dynamic allocation of addresses). So basically dynamic ones should be treated like "dialup space" today, static ones can actually be trusted if the ISP is reliable. If static and reliable ISP = reputation of one customer of allocation size can be blacklisted without affecting other customers. ISPs that do this reliably should have high reputation, and the ones who don't, should get low reputation. Low reputation ISPs I guess none of this data should be trusted. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Douglas Otis wrote: IPv6 makes publishing IP address reputations impractical. Since IP address reputation has been a primary method for identifying abusive sources with IPv4, imposing ineffective and flaky replacement strategies has an effect of deterring IPv6 use. My belief is that IP address reputation has always been flakey, it's just vastly more so with IPv6. What we need is a way to identify a "entity" subnet size. This work is probably wasted on IPv4, but it's definitely needed for IPv6. The ISP in question needs to be able to publish customer/entity subnet size so reputation can be done at this level. This information might today be available using whois to the RIR, but that's not very practical publication method for quick lookups.
www.rfc-editor.org and www.ietf.org TCP window scaling
Hello. As far as I can tell, www.rfc-editor.org doesn't support TCP window scaling. It also doesn't support ftp on its IPv6 address: swmike@uplift:~$ telnet -4 www.rfc-editor.org 21 Trying 64.170.98.47... Connected to rfc-editor.org. Escape character is '^]'. 220 "FTP Server Ready" quit 221 Goodbye. Connection closed by foreign host. swmike@uplift:~$ telnet -6 www.rfc-editor.org 21 Trying 2001:1890:126c::1:2f... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused 14:00:38.045593 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 64, id 33826, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP (6), length 60) xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.36300 > 64.170.98.47.21: Flags [SEW], cksum 0xc541 (correct), seq 1822128746, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3080584776 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0 14:00:38.224653 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP (6), length 56) 64.170.98.41.21 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.36300: Flags [S.], cksum 0x9c17 (correct), seq 831902177, ack 1822128747, win 5792, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 332539598 ecr 3080584776], length 0 I get 124 kilobyte/s when I download <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/tar/RFC-all.tar.gz>. That seems quite slow by todays standards. Since I have 179ms delay, it doesn't really hit me as indicating 16 or 32 kilobyte window size, but somewhere in between. www.ietf.org doesn't seem to support TCP window scaling either: 13:58:13.565917 IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.41603 > 12.22.58.30.80: Flags [SEW], seq 3844537042, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3080548657 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0 13:58:13.746501 IP 12.22.58.30.80 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.41603: Flags [S.], seq 4206253981, ack 3844537043, win 5792, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 357513706 ecr 3080548657], length 0 Any specific reason for this? My host connects with "wscale 7". -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: meetecho praise
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Simon Pietro Romano wrote: This actually depends on people's preferences. We are currently cutting the recordings in pieces because we were asked to do so. Many people prefer shorter, independent clips (each of which can be individually downloaded from the server) rather than a single huge recording with side indication of bookmarked time events. We can do both things, though. Perhaps having some kind of logic with a check box (continue next segment after previous segment ends) would work for people who want one long clip (compromise). I personally prefer the short clips anyway. You're right. The video of the plenary is 'close to useless' because we have recorded it from front-row laptops equipped with off-the-shelf (and low quality) webcams. We will record video with better devices next time and will stream a higher resolution flow for those interested. Please make the size of the video window configurable. If Video was better quality I would probably have the slides and video windows of equal size. As to audio, I believe the current quality is almost optimal: we're providing 16KHz wideband audio with either speex or opus. I agree, audio quality wasn't a problem (apart from the recording devices causing hums and scratching sounds etc, but that's not the fault of Meetecho I would imagine). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
meetecho praise
Hello. I would just like to say I'm very grateful for the WGs that used Meetecho to record their sessions. The HTML5 versions works out of the box with no plugins in Chrome both on my Ubuntu 12.04 machine and Chrome on my Windows7 machine. The sync of sound, slides, picture and jabber room is excellent and makes it very easy top follow what's going on. Some other recordings focus too much on the video of the speaker, where I'm of the opinion that it's the slides and the sound that is most important, and current incarnation of Meetecho solves this very nicely. I applaud these efforts and hope we can end up in a situation where all meetings at the IETF is recorded in this way. Thanks. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: IETF Challenges
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I still didn't leave the posting because there are good encouraging people in IETF. Please note that I have been now one year posting and two years before reading, and have a feeling that IETF SHOULD encourage people from China, Japan, Africa, I read wg mailing lists and participate lightly in 10-20 WGs (most of them I follow discussions and rarely comment, some I comment more frequently). My background is that I started using BBSes/Fidonet in the 80ties, started with Linux/FOSS in the 90ties and then datacom in the late 90ties and onwards. My experience is that there is a huge difference between different WGs. Some I have sent email to without response, then actually emailed the WG chair and asked if the topic of my email was within the WG scope, still no answer. This is an example of an WG that's hard to get into, seems populated by people who mostly discuss within an already established group and where nobody seems to bother that someone comes in with an idea to even give them a reply that their idea is not on topic or alike. Some other WGs are populated by people who are very happy to respond and discuss to anyone who comes up with something, which is very welcoming. I see the IETF as a meetingplace or "market" for people to gather and cooperate in. It's hard to encourage this more than what is done. The barrier for entry is quite low (I have only been to a single IETF meeting, the one that was in my home town Stockholm a few years back), and even before that to participate in a lot of WGs, it's only a matter of having access to email and time and willingness to participate. I can imagine that language and culture is one of the biggest barriers. For me, coming from FOSS/Fidonet discussion culture, joining the IETF was not so different. For others, coming from perhaps a fairly closed corporate climate or a country culture where hierarchy is important, I can imagine it's very different. So basically, I can't really think of anything the IETF can do to encourage people to participate that it's not already doing. Do you have any suggestions? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Time zones in IETF agenda
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, t.p. wrote: Can anyone help an ignorant European? Given a meeting time of 12:00 Noon ET [sic] on Sunday 10th March 2013, what is that in UTC? Daylight saving will have started by then in the USA but not in Europe so the scope for being an hour late or an hour early is much increased. $ date -u -d "CET 12:00 Mar 10 2013" Sun Mar 10 11:00:00 UTC 2013 $ date -u -d "EST 12:00 Mar 10 2013" Sun Mar 10 17:00:00 UTC 2013 $ date -u -d "PST 12:00 Mar 10 2013" Sun Mar 10 20:00:00 UTC 2013 Though, the daylight savings is a bit confusing: $ date -u -d "CEST 12:00 Mar 10 2013" Sun Mar 10 10:00:00 UTC 2013 $ date -u -d "EDT 12:00 Mar 10 2013" Sun Mar 10 16:00:00 UTC 2013 $ date -u -d "PDT 12:00 Mar 10 2013" Sun Mar 10 19:00:00 UTC 2013 So I guess one still has to keep track of daylight savings. Personally I prefer to have local time for meetings, otherwise UTC is nice. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: Hi Mikael Also what it means following things in it that is not RFC2119 language. It will mean, you should understand me/english/ietf/procedure even if I don't have to explain, and you need to understand English well even if you are a great implementor or great programming language speaker. The problem here is that I want them to pay back some of the money (or take back the equipment totally and give back all money) for breach of contract, when I discover that they haven't correctly (as in intention and interop) implemented the RFC they said they said they were compliant in supporting. Ianal, but it feels that it should easier to do this if there are MUST and SHOULD in there and I asked them to document all deviations from these. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Otherwise I think there needs to be better definition of what it means to "implement" or "support" an RFC when it comes to completness and what this means as per following SHOULD and MAY. Also what it means following things in it that is not RFC2119 language. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
As an operator, I purchase equipment and need to write RFQs. I would like to able to ask more than "does the product implement RFC ", I want to also ask "Please document all instances where you did not follow all MUST and SHOULD, and why". Otherwise I think there needs to be better definition of what it means to "implement" or "support" an RFC when it comes to completness and what this means as per following SHOULD and MAY. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: For WGs that do *not* have a low bar for entry, a detailed complaint to the chairs and the AD would be very appropriate (and probably more effective than a rant on this list). Well, it's hard to say what caused an email I sent (new thread, pitching idea, asking if it was relevant to the WG) to not get responded to. Perhaps it was irrelevant or uninteresting but nobody wanted to say so. I don't know, if I don't get a response, I tend not to push the issue. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012, SM wrote: Is there any analysis to determine whether there has been an increase in IETF participation from these economies? Is the outreach effort a failure? Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the last meeting in Stockholm because it meant I only had to pay the entrence fee, since I live there. Getting buy-in from management to allow me to go for a week somewhere and not be available in the office, pay for hotel and travel, plus the entrence fee, it's hard to justify to management. What is a good answer to the question "why?". Remote participating works well in some WGs, in some WGs I have had a hard time getting through. People in different WGs treat the WG mailing list differently, culture seems to differ quite a lot. So elaborating on what the benefit of being there physically would probably help. Remote participation both during and between meetings is crucial for a lot of people I would imagine (it is for me anyway, it's my only chance to participate). Getting a low bar for entry into the discussions is what I feel is the biggest advantage of the IETF model, some WGs really work well in this aspect. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: 300 to 400 milliseconds to the antipodes and back (i.e., RTT) is pretty realistic (say, US to Australia*). To that has to be added codec delays (each frame of 30 fps video represents ~30 msec);100+ msec one way video codec delays are common. If you add all of that up, you get enough latency that it begins to be noticeable, even in a formal meeting, for links such as US-India and US-Australia. Yes, that is my understanding as well, I seldom see more than ~400ms RTT (all bets are off when there is buffering of course) to anywhere in the world. Some of the worst are when it's going longer than antipode, ie Europe->US->Japan->Singapore, but usually even with that it's around 400ms when it's at its worst. I'd say that considering network delay is 400ms RTT, that means with codec delays etc this can be made to work at formal meetings. It's not the same as being in the room, but it can be made to work (if the analogy is to walk up to the mic and make a statement instead of having an argument). Then again, I don't know how much this will help since I blieve a lot of work is not being done in the meetings, but in f2f discussions outside of meetings? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, John Leslie wrote: 150 milliseconds is a real challenge to accomplish worldwide, though it's quite achievable within one continent. I expect IETF folks could learn to work with 250 milliseconds. Are these numbers RTT or one-way? According to figures I've seen in other contexts, most people are fine with 400ms RTT (this is a quite common delay just talking mobile phone-to-phone even in the same city), but people really start to notice around 500-700ms RTT. 1 second RTT is really noticable, but still workable with some practice. It's hard to have a heated argument over more than 400-500 ms RTT though, so it depends on what kind of discussions are to be had :P Ground/sea based fiber optical cable networks rarely give more than 500ms RTT, so anyone fairly well connected to the worldwide Internet via ground based infrastructure should be able to participate with less than 1s RTT including encoding delays etc, at least if the system is located at the same place or fairly close to the venue (at least so the signal doesn't have to be bounced half way around the world before it's sent to the final destination). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Scott Brim wrote: Some people find it difficult to participate at a rapid pace on mailing lists, and will strongly prefer f2f. They might also find it difficult to participate f2f but they can control the pace more. I've been a fairly passive meeting participant in IETF as of a few years, only been to one meeting. I don't know where work is being done at the meetings, but for some WGs with a lot of work, the official meetings are not that helpful. No real discussion can be had because of time constraints, and who can iron out a controvesial topic in a couple of hours anyway, much less 5 or 10 topics? I guess a lot of work is being done over lunch and dinner? I feel this is a matter of culture and how people are used to work. I started using FIDONET in the 80ties, for me eletronic communication and managing lots of email is not a problem. I see other people claiming seldom reading the mailinglist discussions but instead only read drafts. Drafts for me is a good way to "sum up" a discussion, but discussing via writing drafts isn't really a discussion. I'd rather write a "summary" to the list, see if people are interested and if things make sense on a high level, and THEN perhaps a draft can be written. Spending time to write a proper draft (which takes a lot of time if it's your first time) and just having it rejected as a bad idea outright is a waste of time for everybody. The WGs I participate in seem fine to work in without going to meetings though. I'm happy for that. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since I have not hear a single word of news from Thailand for a long time (apart from that story about the jailed American author), I assume things are "just fine" there nowadays. Human trafficking nothwithstanding :-) They just performed an election <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011> and there was a clear winner and the result doesn't seem to be contested, so right now there are no obvious issues to cause major political problems. Basically, the "red shirt" protesters from last year got their party elected, so if there are going to be protests, it'll be some other group. Of course, 2013 is a long way out so there is no way to tell for sure, but as someone else wrote, London right now shows that there is nothing that is sure anywhere. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Queen Sirikit National Convention Center
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Philip Smith wrote: When APRICOT comes back to Bangkok in the future (it is a wonderful conference/convention city), the subway will make the location much more favourable, although I think the APIA Board will want to consider other venues too in light of the previous experience with QSNCC. I would just like to chime in that QSNCC is in an ideal spot in Bangkok, connecting both major public transportation that work very well (MRT and BTS). There are plenty of USD30-40 / night hotels nearby (< 10 minute walking distance) if one doesn't need the more highend ones which would be a few stops away on the BTS. Low season is april-october, it's warm (35-40C during the days, 25-30C during the nights) and extremely humid both day and night. Regarding political problems, there is no way to tell beforehand, but having experienced last years problems on-site (I was there march-april) they looked a lot worse on TV compared to actually being there. There was little problem avoiding it, and QSNCC isn't in the areas targeted last year. So it's more down to if the site works practically to establish infrastructure needed and if there is someone locally willing to sponsor the event, especially with helping out with practicalities. Flights are plentyful to Bangkok from all over the world, though most flights to/from the US seems to go via Japan. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, t.petch wrote: I realise that, as you spell out, you are seeking IETF consensus but what is that if the WG is dead set against it? Depending on who you ask, there was consensus, rough consensus, or no consensus about this document. My opinion is that rough consensus was met with a few very vocal people against. I support this document. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote: My point was that, except for the mechanism for PD, I don't see a substantial difference here that would e.g. prevent this from being developed for IPv4 (in addition to IPv6). -- Yes, I know we need to deploy IPv6... but I don't think you can expect people to get rid of their *working* IPv4 devices... (i.e., not sure why any of this functionality should be v6-only) Chaining NAT boxes already work. I also feel that we shouldn't put in a lot of work to develop IPv4 further, that focus should be put on IPv6. I think this deserves a problem statement that clearly describes what we expect to be able to do (but currently can't), etc. And, if this is meant to be v6-only, state why v4 is excluded -- unless we're happy to have people connect their IPv4-devices, and see that they cannot communicate anymore. IPv4 should be excluded because it's a dead end, and we all know it. We're just disagreeing when it's going to die and how. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [homegate] HOMENET working group proposal
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote: My high level comment/question is: the proposed charter seems to stress that IPv6 is the driver behind this potential wg effort... however, I think that this deserves more discussion -- it's not clear to me why/how typical IPv6 home networks would be much different from their IPv4 counterparts. In my mind, I see the possibility of /56 PD enabling different subnets for different kinds of devices with different security and functional needs, and also chaining of L3 devices. This definitely warrants a group to look at that. A more routed home instead of pure L2 one. One would hope/expect that the former will be gone with IPv6. However, I don't think the latter will. As a result, even when you could "address" nodes that belong to the "home network", you probably won't be able to get your packets to them, unless those nodes initiated the communication instance. This is exactly why the whole "system" needs to work, including uPNP like functionality for nodes to talk to the firewall(s). I personally consider this property of "end-to-end connectivity" as "gone". -- among other reasons, because it would require a change of mindset. I'm more of the idea that people will replicate the architecture of their IPv4 networks with IPv6, in which end-systems are not reachable from the public Internet. I think this will also change, but not for all devices from all of the Internet. Still, I believe there is a place for a working group to look at this. I have subscribed already. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, stephen botzko wrote: A joint-body first agrees upon its charter and working methods, which allows for any negotiation on IPR rules and membership, etc. All of the companies I know who are active in the ITU are also active in the IETF. So it seems to me that there should be some willingness to work together. In any event, if the joint-body negotiations fail, then the IETF simply proceeds on its own. There is not much to lose, and as you seem to agree, potentially a lot to gain. Ok, in IETF spirit of "running code" etc, just start the IETF WG and start the work, and at the same time inform ITU about what's happening, and invite them to participate in the process. Talking about work is just talking and is not productive. Actually starting the work brings urgency to the table and will increase leverage to any negotiations that might be taking place. "Would the people saying it's impossible please get out of the way of the people actually doing it" I see absolutely no good reason not to start the work and do negotiations with other SDOs on the side. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Broadband Forum liaison to IETF on IPv6 security
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote: I may be missing something, but it appears that, in the cases described, the two hosts downstream of two separate cable modems are off link to each other. This brings up the question: Do there two cable modems constitute two virtual interfaces, like two VLANs on the same physical router interface? If so, this is an architectural, rather than an implementation, question. Thoughts? This is basically "forced forwarding" for the L2 aggregation layer. It's often done on ETTH deployments as well as cable environments, in IPv4 it's done in conjunction with local-proxy-arp (in your IP subnet, the ISP router will answer all ARP requests with its own MAC and all traffic between clients within the subnet is done via the router which does not send out ICMP redirects). In my mind it's unsuitable for clients to run SLAAC in these environments and the only real alternative is full DHCPv6(-PD) with SAVI-like functionality in the L2 equipment along the way (in v4 the L2 equipment does DHCP-snooping and installs L3 filters accordingly). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
