Hi friends,
We are working on enabling SNMP provisioning of SONET features of a
transport Node.
We are currently referring to RFC 2558 . But, this is not able to
serve our purpose.
Please suggest us any other RFCs which may be relevant( We are
paticularly not
able to find the
now i'm out-sourcing a best firewall system for our company so
can anyone help me on this.
thanks,
don
RJ Atkinson wrote:
At 15:21 26/06/00 , Vernon Schryver wrote:
- persistently, unbendingly claiming that 14000 bit/sec is a bit rate
that is radically lower than anything ever before used for TCP/IP.
Those of us who have run voice over IP over 9600 bps HF radio
find the
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:29:39 +0800, Don Balunos [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
now i'm out-sourcing a best firewall system for our company so can =
anyone help me on this.
First off, you didn't specify how "best" was defined. The "best" solution
will depend on a lot of things, including
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:23:41 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Harald At 05:30 26.06.2000 +, Mohsen BANAN-Public wrote:
The current status, state and beginning date of that example
makes my point.
After 7 months of delay, caused by the IESG, ESRO was
Hi all!
I am just trying to figure out under which circumstances RTCP is more
appropriate to use than RTSP?
Also, I was thinking about using a layered encoding system to
dynamically adapt the unicast RTP transmission to the network
conditions. For this I would use say 3 or 4 different RTP
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:04:34 +0200, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
After 7 months of delay, caused by the IESG, ESRO was published
as an RFC in Sept. 1997.
Patrik There have already been enough discussions on the IETF list about
Patrik ESRO. See the
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:01:23 -, Mohsen BANAN-Public
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
claims full ownership of the RFC Publication process and quashes
Of
*
* The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
* becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
* claims full ownership of the RFC Publication process and quashes
* whatever may want to compete with it or that it does not
* like.
In 1997, D.J. Bernstein wrote a short note titled:
RFC submission: a case study
The full text of that note is available at
http://cr.yp.to/proto/rfced.html
D.J. Bernstein concluded his case study with the following
paragraph.
It's well known that the IETF is no longer the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 08:01:03 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IPv4 is running out of space but IPv6 is too much overhead.
You'd get a lot more usable response if you explained WHY you felt IPv6 is
too much overhead. Often, the complaint is (for example) "It takes
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:48:50 GMT, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mohsen
Mohsen The Real component is that IETF/IESG/IAB is well on its way towards
Mohsen becoming a cult violating all published procedures. IETF/IESG/IAB now
Mohsen claims full ownership of the RFC Publication
Date: 27 Jun 2000 16:38:48 -
From: Mohsen BANAN-Public [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Non-IETF Informational RFC Publication Fiction
[...]
I believe I also played a significant role in
establishing the RFC Editor's independence based on my insistence on
doing it by the book.
% If I were to suggest any change in the RFC review and publication process,
% it would be to give IESG the power to say "no" to publication of individual
% submissions. (perhaps with the possibility of formal appeal to IAB)
% I do not believe that IESG would do this capriciously, and I believe
Not what I would have hoped for in an evolved Internet.
A lot has changed in the past 30 years.
The notion that 'anything is fair game' in the RFC series made a lot
more sense when the Internet was just an experimental network, and
when packet-switched newtorking was brand new. In such an
IPv6 is a 'killer' from IP Switching point of view. I was hoping IP switching will
kill ATM over a period like 10 to 15 years (like what happened to X.25), and I prefer
IP to ATM. With IPv6 I am not so sure although I still think IP Switching will 'kill'
ATM in 20 to 25 years.
On Tue, 27
Dear Friends,
Glad to share the knowledge with all of you.
Best Regards,
Champake Mendis
Assitant Director (Information Documentation)
Telecommunications Regulatory Commission
276 Elvitigala Mawatha,
Colombo 8,
Sri Lanka. Tel: (941) 684865 Fax: (941) 689341
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL
Keith Moore wrote:
These days the value in the RFC series is not that it is a central
repository for everything having to do with Internet protocols
(as if such a repository were even feasible!) but that documents
in the series are likely to be relevant and of reasonable quality.
Hai,
How do i get the MAC address of the Network card in Windows environment, i
would like to get it thru my program , is there any option in WSAIoctl() ?.
Regards,
S.Sriram
From: Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
I think things are headed in that general direction and I think it is a
sad state of affairs. Historically, RFCs were used to document ideas,
both good and bad. The series covered the range of idea generation
and expression and this was encouraged
20 matches
Mail list logo
