>As long as it is safe (i.e., follows good congestion control),
>why should we care how many of these protocols are defined? After
>we ensure the protocols are safe we can just let Darwinism take its
>course.
Because a customer with sufficient $ would inevitably request the
Frobnitz Transport, s
Hello all,
I have been reading up a few mails on this group n
found that it was too above my head, so i would kindly
request youi to unsubscribe me.
Regards
Sourav
=
Sourav Sengupta
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yah
> My bottom line thoughts after having scanned thread is
> have you looked at SCTP? We have just finished almost
> 2 years of work and it solves some if not all of your
> issues...
Before I posted the long (and maybe annoying~_~) essays about ATP
I've reviewed a few of the articles about the enhan
From: Mark Allman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:12:52 -0500
I am fairly unconvinced in the arguments made by Mr. Gao. However,
maybe a TCPng is the wrong way to look at things. A better model,
it seems to me, is the one followed by SCTP. In other words, let's
>> Critics of ICANN will likely request that the committee make ICANN
>> reopen the selection process. ... Other critics include the ACLU and
>> many of the unsuccessful TLD applicants, several of which might take
>> ICANN to court.
With any luck, ICANN will be replaced with somet
> >choose-it-yourself DNS roots and structures (where no one had to
> >worry about uniqueness of names and each structure made up its
> >own rules for dealing with potential conflicts).
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
Somebody is unclear on the concept of "metaphor" I think. I'm not aware of
John attemp
>Is this really a problem?
Yes.
>How often would a single TCP session have allocated to itself an
>entire gigabit link?
Think server-less backup on a Storage Area Network.
>I'm not aware of any end systems or apps that generate data at this rate (
>especially for any extended length of t
Jun'an:
Now that I have scanned through most of this thread
I am going to pick up on this and reply :-) I have
been in a FreeBSD driver Hell so please forgive my
tardy response :-0
My bottom line thoughts after having scanned thread is
have you looked at SCTP? We have just finished almost
2 yea
you have a new email address for me to add to the sociopath filter, eh?
randy
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> At 09:17 08/02/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Anyway, I agree with Mr Gao that it will be usefull to have a distinguishing
> >name for the last network element, something like ONE "outest network element"
> >or END "edge netework device" or any other that m
>From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>First of all, without commenting on this particular story,
>everyone who is (or has been) concerned about the ICANN topic
>should be aware that its entire history, and most of its
>pre-history, has been characterized by various interest groups
>who will
Yes, however, I think we have three terms here:
1. end-to-end: path from host to host
2. Network edge: Internet access edge
3. Network edge: LAN edge
Maybe, start using local edge to indicate the LAN edge
Tina Iliff
-Original Message-
From: John Stracke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
1. The web page of IETF which gives an overview of IETF
(http://www.ietf.org/overview.html) says:
> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large
> open international community of network designers, operators,
> vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the
> Internet archi
> The prevailing view seems to be "the Commerce Department giveth, and the
> Commerce Department can taketh away."
the major premise is false.
>>> I found this news report of some concern
>> glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING
>> issue.
> So, who's issue is it then?
first, i don't know whose issue grape juice is either. i just know it's not
an ietf issue. the ietf is not the internet's default garbage
Hiding under "engineering" as if it were a warm fuzzy blanket that somehow
depoliticizes your work, won't help to keep the Internet open and free.
Thank you Graham for posting this to this group.
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2
This is not meant to start any religious wars. So
dont use it as an excuse.
I am curious as to what happened to NECP. All the
drafts have expired and there doesnt seem to be any
renewal effort happening.
Could someone please help me out here?
cheers,
jamal
Kevin Farley wrote:
> So you think your PC is the edge of the Internet?
Isn't that what the end-to-end principle means?
--
/=\
|John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==
I do agree with your point regarding the possibility of differentiated
services QoS degrading router performance. In my opinion it may add slight
delays in transport. However, I do see a benefit in offering more than two
service levels. I guess that you can say that assured forwarding and
exped
So, who's issue is it then?
ravi.
Randy Bush wrote:
> > I found this news report of some concern
>
> glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue.
>
> randy
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 10:54:45AM +, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I found this news report of some concern, not because of what ICANN is
> supposed to have done or not done, but because it seems there is a
> presumption by some that ICANN is answerable to US Congress. I understood
> that the who
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:21:16AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I found this news report of some concern
>
> glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue.
>
> randy
>
It is a constraint. It defines the limits of the practicable.
David Schutt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On Thursday, 08 February, 2001 10:54 + Graham Klyne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found this news report of some concern, not because of what
> ICANN is supposed to have done or not done, but because it
> seems there is a presumption by some that ICANN is answerable
> to US Congress. I un
> I found this news report of some concern
glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue.
randy
>I found this news report of some concern, not because of what ICANN is
>supposed to have done or not done, but because it seems there is a
>presumption by some that ICANN is answerable to US Congress. I understood
>that the whole purpose of setting up ICANN was to provide Internet
>governanc
I found this news report of some concern, not because of what ICANN is
supposed to have done or not done, but because it seems there is a
presumption by some that ICANN is answerable to US Congress. I understood
that the whole purpose of setting up ICANN was to provide Internet
governance tha
At 09:17 08/02/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyway, I agree with Mr Gao that it will be usefull to have a distinguishing
>name for the last network element, something like ONE "outest network element"
>or END "edge netework device" or any other that may be chosen.
I think the (layer 3) n
MANAGING COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS IN A COMPLEX WORLD:
Leadership in Rapidly Changing Business Environments -
Learning and Adapting in Time
NECSI Executive Education Programs
May 31-June 1, 2001
Charles Hotel, Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA
Speakers:
YANEER BAR-YAM, NECSI
> you should probably redirect this conversation to
> the end2end-interest list:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> the entire IETF list is probably the wrong place for substantive technical
> discussion of this type.
I agree.
I've subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] by visiting
http://www.postel.org
>> > The host *is* the edge of the network.
>>
>> I'm sorry to have not mentioned that I consider the host nodes,
>> or the end nodes, are not edges but instead something attaching
>> on network edges. I consider the very last hub, or the access router
>> which the end nodes connected to as the
30 matches
Mail list logo
