[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:30:35 PDT, Eric Rescorla said:
This seems to me like a false dichotomy. If I were deploying a NAT
(which I didn't) there would be certain things I would care about
and others I didn't. If I'm already firewalling off these services,
why
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
The point I was making is that if an NNTP connection fails because
the firewall is *configured* to say 'None Shall Pass' (insert Monty
Python .wav here ;) then that is *proper* behavior. If a VOIP
connection fails because the NAT is saying 'None Shall Pass', then
Why should the users be limited to what IT managers decide is good or bad?
Internet is build on dumb network, smart terminal. End-users are suppose
to be able to put up their own services, not just running some apps.
This has been the Internet principles and have serves us well so far.
(The
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:19:12 PDT, Eric Rescorla said:
You've got it absolutely backwards. The fact that the NAT breaks applications
that I don't want to run anyway is a FEATURE, not a bug.
And the fact that NAT breaks things that you DO want to run is a ?
And unfortunately, a lot of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you use LDP, it is NOT a routing protocol. The specific mode of
use
(targeted LDP) is already described in RFC 3036. The FECs are
different, but
the FEC TLV was defined in such a way as to be extensible.
And when you want to do this
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:55:49 EDT, S Woodside said:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Tomson Eric ((Yahoo.fr))
wrote:
Now, the fact that masking the internal addresses to the external
world - so that internal hosts can initiate traffic to the outside,
but no
external host can
If you need a secure zone, and you want a firewall, then should install
a firewall. You should not put an NAT thinking that it is also a firewall.
But I agree with you that NAT is here to stay.
-James Seng
Fleischman, Eric wrote:
Eric Rescorla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
similarly,
Valdis,
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
And unfortunately, a lot of the Just Does Not Work stuff are
applications like H.323 and VOIP that Joe Sixpack actually
*might* be interested in.
Unfortunately, there is no single reason [protocol or app xyz] does not
work over NAT. When [protocol or app xyz]
Eric,
With due respects, there is a flaw in your thinking. Many ISPs give users NATed
adresses, without users really knowing or understanding what they are. When the users
try applications or serves which fail because of the non-transparency, the users may
not know the cause of the failures.
on 6/18/2003 10:44 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
None of these things worked real well through firewalls either, which
is sort of my point.
If it doesn't work through a firewall, it's because the firewall is
doing what you ASKED it to do - block
The Internet is a Internetwork of Internets. It is not a network!
To repeat, it has no center, and further, does not even have any edges.
that's not a useful vocabulary. try this one:
1 - Connection Taxonomy
1.1. The Internet is a network of networks, where the component
networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver) writes:
Related to what you wrote a little while ago, blackhole routes are
easier to deploy against overseas senders of junk IP packets (for most
localized notions of overseas) than nearby spammers. Do you get
much spam direct from China or Korea?
before
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Vach Kompella wrote:
- the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work
Yes.
So we should not do any new work?!
We should focus on the work that is more integral to IP and the Internet.
1. Virtual Private LAN Service. This is Internet-wise ethernet
At 01:34 AM 6/19/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:55:49 EDT, S Woodside said:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Tomson Eric ((Yahoo.fr))
wrote:
Now, the fact that masking the internal addresses to the external
world - so that internal hosts can initiate
--On onsdag, juni 18, 2003 11:04:30 -0700 Ping Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for IESG, the problem is not about having a new IETF WG. Rather, why
are we spending so much time and energy on standardization? How many
times are people going to write architecture and framework RFC's?
until they
My take is that NAT's respond to several flaws in the IPv4 architecture:
- 1) Not enough addresses - this being the one that brought them into
existence.
- 1a) Local allocation of addresses - a variant of the preceeding one, but
subtly different; NAT's do allow you to allocate
James Seng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should the users be limited to what IT managers decide is good or bad?
Internet is build on dumb network, smart terminal. End-users are
suppose to be able to put up their own services, not just running some
apps. This has been the Internet principles
The reason that we are explaining (once again) why NAT sucks is that
some people in this community are still in denial about that
The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how definitively
the market has, for the moment, chosen IPv4+NAT as the best balance between
John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With due respects, there is a flaw in your thinking. Many ISPs give
users NATed adresses, without users really knowing or understanding
what they are. When the users try applications or serves which fail
because of the non-transparency, the users may
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 07:49:14AM -0400, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
My take is that NAT's respond to several flaws in the IPv4 architecture:
- 1) Not enough addresses - this being the one that brought them into
existence.
- 1a) Local allocation of addresses - a variant of the preceeding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:19:12 PDT, Eric Rescorla said:
You've got it absolutely backwards. The fact that the NAT breaks applications
that I don't want to run anyway is a FEATURE, not a bug.
And the fact that NAT breaks things that you DO want to run is a ?
I'm
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sadly, the IETF seems to find ways to generate immense amounts of heat over
NAT, while sticking its collective head in the sand with regards to
activity in the marketplace.
the NAT vendors are the irresponsible ones. they create a mess out of the
If the customers are getting what they want, that seems to me that it
can hardly be characterized as a mess. And you have yet to establish
that they're not getting what they want.
certainly the users I deal with are not getting what they want.
others seem to be reporting similar experiences.
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the customers are getting what they want, that seems to me that it
can hardly be characterized as a mess. And you have yet to establish
that they're not getting what they want.
certainly the users I deal with are not getting what they want.
1. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)--L2 service that emulates LAN
across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network, allowing standard
Ethernet devices communicate with each other as if they were
connected to a common LAN segment.
I do not believe this is a technically
Title: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Noel,
You are getting too cerebral. We can
look at the marketing info on the box of a NAT product to see what people think
they are getting:
1) Instant Internet Sharing for cable and
DSL
2)
certainly the users I deal with are not getting what they want.
others seem to be reporting similar experiences.
Then why don't they switch providers.
variety of reasons: often the provider is not the problem, it's the local
network admins, and the users aren't free to go elsewhere. some
This is more hyperbole. How have NATs created a mess out of the network?
Yes, I understand that they've made the network environment more
complicated which makes life hard on protocols designers. So what?
If the customers are getting what they want, that seems to me that it
can hardly be
My posting wasn't concerning what I think, it was concerning what is commonly done
today in industry. I also didn't intend to imply that the NAT was being used as a
firewall, rather that the NAT is commonly used today as an element within firewalls.
My own thoughts (which is off-topic) is that
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason that we are explaining (once again) why NAT sucks is that
some people in this community are still in denial about that
The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how definitively
the
Keith Moore wrote:
expecting the network
to isolate insecure hosts from untrustworthy attackers, or more
generally, to enforce policy about what kinds of content are
permitted to pass, has always been a stretch.
So where do firewalls fit into your picture? Do they represent
Eric Rescorla writes:
What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
most of the applications inconvenienced by NAT are ones that IT
managers would want to screen off anyway.
Uh, have you paid no
At 02:45 AM 6/19/2003 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
Which BTW come July 1 becomes illegal in the US with the implementation of
the Federal Trade Commission Do Not Call list.
which country's federal do you mean?
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html
oh, that one. i guess that
I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to protect the
network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized usage.
So for every firewall you purchase and install, you can focus its
configuration and operation on protecting the network from your users. I
trust you agree that
Remember Paul ..the issue in most of these laws is to go after the
company offering the products, porn, whatever _via_ spam.
and when they are syn-scanning me from outside the us i can tell who
their client is how?
and when the robot calls back asking me to hold on the line for a human
Daniel,
I agree with the rest of your post, however
Since NAPT uses stateful inspection to operate,
I think I don't agree with this. I would say that NAPT is a stateful
process but not that it uses inspection. By inspection I understand a
more intelligent process that decapsulates packets and
On 19 Jun 2003 06:59:56 -0700 Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the fact that NAT breaks things that you DO want to run is a ?
I'm not convinced that this is happening... if it is,
why isn't there a market reaction.
such maybe building. i have a client who
The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how
definitively
the market has, for the moment, chosen IPv4+NAT as the best balance
between
cost and effectiveness.
Get a grip. We all know you don't like NAT. You don't need to reply
to
*every* *single* *message* *about*
On 19 Jun 2003 07:39:56 -0700 Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then why don't they switch providers. Revealed preference suggests
that they *are* getting what they want, no matter how much
complaining.
in many places, the choice of broadband providers is quite poor. see my
earlier
in many places, the choice of broadband providers is quite poor. see
my
earlier posting about my client for whom Ameritech DSL was the only
affordable choice, and we just barely made it work for their
application.
This seems like a specious argument. The client had chosen, as you
indicate,
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
certainly the users I deal with are not getting what they want.
others seem to be reporting similar experiences.
Then why don't they switch providers.
variety of reasons: often the provider is not the problem, it's the local
network admins, and
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric Rescorla writes:
What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
most of the applications inconvenienced by NAT are ones that IT
managers would want
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I said before, the workarounds that are being
used to help facilitate application traversal of NATs are
definitely introducing new security problems that wouldn't
exist if the NAT weren't there. There are other problems
around robustness and routing.
Eric Rescorla writes:
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric Rescorla writes:
What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
most of the applications inconvenienced by NAT are
until recently the only way I could get even one
static IP address for my home was through a special deal with a
friend of mine who had a small ISP, and the best bandwidth I could
get was 128kbps. none of the other local providers would sell me
one.
Doesn't the fact that there's not
On donderdag, jun 19, 2003, at 13:49 Europe/Amsterdam, J. Noel Chiappa
wrote:
Maybe NATs are, in fact, a result
of a very deep problem with our architecture.
My take is that NAT's respond to several flaws in the IPv4
architecture:
- 1) Not enough addresses - this being the one that brought
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:00:47 -0400 Neil Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in many places, the choice of broadband providers is quite poor. see
my earlier posting about my client for whom Ameritech DSL was the
only affordable choice, and we just barely made it work for their
application.
Exactly. A NAPT (not a NA(!P)T ..) is in fact a perfectly good
firewall* for the home user. So all this argumentation that a NAPT is
not a firewall is bunk.
* where firewall = a device that protect my internal net from external
threats
simon
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:46 AM,
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage. It's implementing a very simple policy, protect me from the
outside world.
simon
On
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
until recently the only way I could get even one
static IP address for my home was through a special deal with a
friend of mine who had a small ISP, and the best bandwidth I could
get was 128kbps. none of the other local providers would sell me
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
most of the applications inconvenienced by NAT are ones that IT
managers would want to screen off anyway.
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric Rescorla writes:
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric Rescorla writes:
What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
most
*
* So, on the one hand, we have the actual behavior of millions of people.
* On the other hand we have Keith Moore's opinion about what they ought
* to prefer. I don't have any trouble figuring out which one I believe.
*
* -Ekr
*
Erik,
Errr, let's see if I understand your
since usually you mean NAPT. Realistically speaking, almost every NAT
that's out there in the real world is actually a NAPT. In fact I think
that NAT is so rare that it really should be called NA(!P)T to be
completely clear that there is no port translation going on.
simon
--
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage.
only if the policy that the user wants is exactly what the NAPT
provides. it's
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this just security through obscurity, or something better?
Security through obscurity. See Bellovin's paper on enumerating
through a NAT.
http://www.research.att.com/~smb/papers/fnat.pdf
This paper has nothing to do with
Doesn't the fact that there's not enough demand for this product
to make it available suggest anything to you?
does the fact that there was enough demand for the product that it
eventually became available suggest anything to you?
Yeah, that there's a subset who cares. They got it.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Daniel,
I agree with the rest of your post, however
Since NAPT uses stateful inspection to operate,
when referring to NAPT, we are talking about rinetd, right? you can run
that on a linux box with two network interfaces (ethernet, ppp, token
ring,
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, that there's a subset who cares. They got it. The market is
working.
the market is dysfunctional. it doesn't always fail to deliver what is
needed, but it often does.
That's your claim. I don't buy it.
Apparently not, or they wold switch.
Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*
* So, on the one hand, we have the actual behavior of millions of people.
* On the other hand we have Keith Moore's opinion about what they ought
* to prefer. I don't have any trouble figuring out which one I believe.
*
* -Ekr
*
Vach Kompella wrote:
Melinda,
As a process kind of thing, I'm also concerned about the
growth of the temporary sub-IP area, so I think there are
issues here with both the work itself and in how the IETF
goes about taking on and structuring its work.
And proposals have been made to dismantle
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage.
only if the policy that the
on 6/19/2003 12:59 PM Keith Moore wrote:
Yeah, that there's a subset who cares. They got it. The market is
working.
the market is dysfunctional. it doesn't always fail to deliver what is
needed, but it often does.
I wouldn't say that this market is dysfunctional, more that markets aren't
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
they would switch if they had alternatives available. but people
like you keep claiming that alternatives aren't needed because the
market has spoken.
Nonsense. I'd love to see an alternative. Obviously, NATS have costs
and a solution that
they would switch if they had alternatives available. but people
like you keep claiming that alternatives aren't needed because the
market has spoken.
Nonsense. I'd love to see an alternative. Obviously, NATS have costs
and a solution that reduced those costs would be better. What
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:10:03AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Users aren't physically handcuffed to their Internet connections.
They have choices as to who to purchase connectivity from. Those
users, if they chose, could purchase connectivity with static IP
addresses and no NAT. They by and
Yes, I agree, that NAPTs have tons of side effects, and that's a bad
thing. But, for the average home user on DSL, they have purchased
millions upon millions of these things. It's a tiny little network and
they have full control over all the hosts. So for them, the NAPT
firewalling
Eric Rescorla writes:
P.S. And btw, I'm not advocating NAT. What I'm advocating is that
we stop behaving as if we think that anyone who uses NAT is obviously
an idiot.
I don't think that I've seen anybody say that.
Most people who use NAT have no clue one way or
the other about NAT any more
so it's not like I haven't actually been working on solving the
problem.
I didn't say you haven't been. So, my question at this point is:
(1) If these solutions aren't available, why not?
(2) If they are available and people don't want them, why not?
it may be too early, and lots of
I'm not sure what you mean by routing above. Are you suggesting there's
some negative externality in that NAT makes the routing infrastructure
more complicated? If so, what is it?
If you're multihomed and your route changes, your address
changes. (Yes, this happens).
I am profoundly weirded
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage. It's implementing a very simple policy, protect me from the
outside world.
NAT has
I said I was done with this discussion, but I think Melinda
deserves a response here.
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what you mean by routing above. Are you suggesting there's
some negative externality in that NAT makes the routing infrastructure
more complicated? If
Eric Rescorla wrote:
(2) NAT solves at least some of those problems, at some
cost (say Cn), both financial and operational and
that solution has benefit Bn.
(5) It's also possible that at some time in the future
Cn will exceed Bn, in which case I would expect people
to stop using NAT
(1) There are some set of problems that users have or
believe they have.
(2) NAT solves at least some of those problems, at some
cost (say Cn), both financial and operational and
that solution has benefit Bn.
(3) The fact that a large number of people have chosen
to use
Does this seem like a weird position for an IAB member to take?
I don't think so.
I think economics provides useful tools for talking about
and evaluating this stuff, too, but I think it's pretty
evident that you can optimize for anything you like and get
different results. I question whether
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage. It's implementing a very
NAT has problematically constrained policy capabilities.
Does that mean that a NAT is a workable firewall but introduces
undesirable side effects?
No, it means that NAT is inherently incapable of
enforcing policy decisions at a granularity that's useful.
Melinda
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this seem like a weird position for an IAB member to take?
I don't think so.
I think economics provides useful tools for talking about
and evaluating this stuff, too, but I think it's pretty
evident that you can optimize for anything you like
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) There are some set of problems that users have or
believe they have.
(2) NAT solves at least some of those problems, at some
cost (say Cn), both financial and operational and
that solution has benefit Bn.
(3) The fact that a
From: S Woodside [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does that mean that a NAT is a workable firewall but introduces
undesirable side effects? Is it (or could it be) possible to make an
equally workable firewall, at a low price, that doesn't introduce to
constrained policy capabilities?
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 05:59 PM, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: S Woodside [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does that mean that a NAT is a workable firewall but introduces
undesirable side effects? Is it (or could it be) possible to make an
equally workable firewall, at a low price, that doesn't
Eric,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
The fact that a large number of people have chosen
to use NAT is a strong argument that BC. (Here's
where the invocation of revealed preference comes in).
This is not the point. What you are saying is that since BC it makes
NAT OK. What I am saying (and possibly
Richard Welty wrote:
the needed three legged firewall, bridging two interfaces and
using NAT on the third one, is rather more complicated than i
wanted to deploy for a budget-constrained customer. neither i
nor my client feel that there was a much of a win here, but
there weren't any other
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:26:17 -0700 Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Welty wrote:
the needed three legged firewall, bridging two interfaces and
using NAT on the third one, is rather more complicated than i
wanted to deploy for a budget-constrained customer. neither i
nor my
Keith,
Michel Py wrote:
IMHO, here is the deal: IPv4 NAT does suck, but there is
nothing we can do to remove it; so the only worthy
efforts are 1) maybe try to make it less worse (I will
not go as far as saying better) and 2) let's not make
the same mistake with IPv6.
Keith Moore wrote:
Ted,
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
So 30 static IP addresses, with a slower service, is over
*five* times more expensive, and over twice as expensive
as faster service with only 2 static IP addresses.
As much as I hate NAT, from an aesthetic perspective,
using two static IP addresses and a NAT box
I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or
unauthorized usage.
I do not agree with this. The primary purpose of firewalls is to protect
BOTH the network and the hosts.
the reason I disagree is that fundamentally, there's
Simon,
Simon Woodside wrote:
Is it (or could it be) possible to make an equally workable
{local address isolation system}, at a low price, that
doesn't introduce the drawbacks of NAPT.
If you are talking about the actual hardware, yes. It already exists,
just a matter of how it is
The question: smart terminal or smart network?
I believe in smart terminal. Nothing there suggest you should not run
your firewall or any other filtering software on your end-terminal.
End-machine are vulnerable? Then fixed the end-machine. It isnt rocket
science.
-James Seng
Eric Rescorla
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or
unauthorized usage.
Michel Py wrote:
I do not agree with this. The primary purpose of firewalls is
to protect BOTH the network and the hosts.
the reason
Keith Moore wrote:
I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or
unauthorized usage.
Michel Py wrote:
I do not agree with this. The primary purpose of firewalls is
to protect BOTH the network and the hosts.
the
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
I believe you should buy or write applications that ensure their
own security and protect the security of the machines on which
they are hosted. I believe you should buy computing platforms
that provide facilities to isolate applications from one another,
so that
Eric Rescorla writes:
I said I was done with this discussion, but I think Melinda
deserves a response here.
Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what you mean by routing above. Are you suggesting there's
some negative externality in that NAT makes the routing
Keith Moore wrote:
I believe you should buy or write applications that ensure their
own security and protect the security of the machines on which
they are hosted. I believe you should buy computing platforms
that provide facilities to isolate applications from one another,
so that a
Thus spake James Seng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The question: smart terminal or smart network?
I believe in smart terminal. Nothing there suggest you should not run
your firewall or any other filtering software on your end-terminal.
End-machine are vulnerable? Then fixed the end-machine. It isnt
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So just saying that NAT is here get used to it is,
architecturally, not helpful. The split of effort
is to put it mildly a huge drain on engineering
talent, but more importantly the net is becoming
more and more incomprehensible because of it, both
On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 12:51 US/Pacific, Keith Moore wrote:
[I wrote:]
When customers of retail Internet service start demanding a NAT
standard, then that's when the IETF might want to think about
documenting the standard that the market seems to want.
here's the only thing that a NAT
Thus spake Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you know, I'm happy to say that I don't really know enough about Windows
internals (for any version of Windows) to know for sure whether it
provides
those facilities or not. my honest guess is that recent versions do
provide
them, and that the reason
Hi all,
Here is a heads-up on a new BOF for Vienna.
br,
John
BOF NAME ACRONYM: Comprehensive apprOACH to quality (COACH)
AREA: General
BOF CHAIR(S): Bernard Aboba, John Loughney
MAILING LIST:
List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Body:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:27:03 EDT, J. Noel Chiappa said:
The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how definitively
the market has, for the moment, chosen IPv4+NAT as the best balance between
cost and effectiveness.
Actually Noel, I think what he's in denial about is the fact
100 matches
Mail list logo
