To clarify a couple items in relation to the announcement
posted earlier on IP storage:
* it is NOT an announcement of an IETF working group.
* IP Storage has not been sanctioned/endorsed by the IESG/IAB/IETF in any
way
My apologies for any confusion resulting from the original posting.
-Cost
> Source-routed packets from untrusted hosts, as many of us know, have to
> be dropped/ignored. I do not know if there is another kind of attack
> regarding the forging of IP headers, as I didn't study ( :( ) the TCP/IP
> RFCs.
Actually, those who understand the security problem of IP sourc
Stephen Kent wrote:
> I'll suggest one course of action, but I keep emphasizing the issue
> is not one of alternates, but of recognizing the limitations of
> proposals now on the table and considering approaches that may work
> irrespective of whether everyone performs filtering.
I am wi
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, John Stracke wrote:
> The second most common SCSI application (after disk drives, for which we have
> NFS) seems to be scanners, for which remote use doesn't make much sense; you
> have to be physically at the scanner to put the paper in.
Actually, there are valid scenarios
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 10:57 23.02.00 +, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>
> >Why?
>
> Because 100 m Cat5 cabling is cheaper than 5 m of current SCSI cabling?
> [...]
> BTW, SCSI is used for lots more things than storage - my favourite
> application was the one that used SCSI to control a lase
At 02:48 PM 2/22/00 -0800, Costa Sapuntzakis wrote:
>Announcement of IP Storage (IPS) proposed working group
>---
I have a quick question. Has any Area Director signed up to support this
proposed working group and schedule a BOF? Or are you anno
At 10:57 23.02.00 +, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Costa Sapuntzakis wrote:
>
> > Announcement of IP Storage (IPS) proposed working group
> > ---
>
> > * A standard, interoperable, high-performance, reliable transport
> > protocol
Randy Bush writes, on the DNSEXT mailing list:
> as we have real work to do in preparation for adelaide, this digression and
> pissing contest will have to move off this list at the end of today.
This ``digression'' is an attempt to fix a serious interoperability
problem. The discussion is clearl
