Re: Why people by NATs

Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Oh, sorry. Not *exactly*. It's the DHCP *server* which does the DNS > update. My DHCP server is firmware in my Linksys :-). -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond ___ Ietf mailing list [EM

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:11:19 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> Without solutions to these four problems on the horizon, I can't >> voice any enthusiasm that the larger address space in IPv6 will >> eliminate NAT in home or enterprise netwo

Last-Call comments on 'The Standard Hexdump Format '

Re: The Last-Call for this document caught my eye when it went past on the IETF mailing list and I'm interested (having written too many Intel-HEX and S-record parsers in the past). I'm ignorant of whether there is a deployed bas

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 21.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thus spake "Kai Henningsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Sprunk) wrote on 20.11.04 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > ISTR that the local competition (the one who's laying down cables like > > crazy

Re: How the IPnG effort was started

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin) wrote on 21.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > packet-switch networks. The internet (small "i") is not even defined in the > French law where the word is broadly used and understood as the generic > support of the "on-line public communications" and the digit

Re: Why people by NATs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 22.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually > > configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You > > run DHCP within the home a

Re: Why people by NATs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Johansson) wrote on 27.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 10:11 +0100, Leif Johansson wrote: > > > >>>For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the hassle cost of > >>>IP renumbering would be twenty times larger. Giv

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Margaret Wasserman) wrote on 23.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The average Internet user (home user or enterprise administrator) > does not care about the end-to-end principle or the architectural > purity of the Internet. Maybe not the average usr, but a pretty large subset

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote on 23.11.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This really isn't a problem of the IETF. The problems is at the ISP's > who should charge for bandwidth usage and not for IP's. Actually, they do - with some qualifications - at least over here, in Germany. That is,

Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: do we need dedicated IASA (bank) accounts

At 12:15 AM 27/11/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: In revision draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt we have text in sections 5 through 5.4 about IASA funding and where the money needs to be kept. Specifically, the current text suggests that there is/are one or more IASA specific bank accounts. Namely: - Sec

AdminRest: IASA BCP: Trusting whom to do what

An observation, speaking as an individual (not as doc editor): As far as I can tell, the decision about whether or not the IETF is trusting ISOC as our partner in the IASA effort was settled by the apparent consensus that we should follow the "Scenario O" path. I'd respectfully suggest that, unle

Re: AdminRest: Blowing the bolts

At 10:16 AM -0500 11/28/04, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. As we try to raise other things back to the level of principles, I want to address one that seems to underlie some of the thinking that has led to what I believe to be too-specific, and probably misguided, provisions in the draft. snip... (2) A

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

all i'm asking for at the moment is that "transparency" be mentioned whenever "consensus" is mentioned. what kind of transparency, or what kind of consensus, we mean can be defined elsewhere. changing consent to informed consent might also be a good idea but is inadequate alone -- we talk a lot a

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

> An earlier comment from Brian Carpenter, to which several people agreed, > indicated that we should consider the need for an IETF "sunshine law" > separately from the IASA structure. i didn't agree but i didn't want to use everybody's time arguing about it, and i still don't. but it turns out t

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

Hi Paul, At 6:10 PM + 11/28/04, Paul Vixie wrote: any way you can work a "sunshine law" in will work for me. i'm concerned about the ways in which ietf has acted "in my name" WITHOUT my consent or knowledge. i know from private responses to my previous threads on that topic that i'm not alone

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

> > Carl asks: > > how about > > > > > > The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf > > of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus > > and the continued consent of the community > > After a careful process of deliberation, there

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Malamud) writes: > How about: > > > > The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf > of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus add "and transparency" here plz. > and the continued consent of the community >

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

On 23-nov-04, at 13:03, Margaret Wasserman wrote: To offer true provider-independence, we would need to offer long-term, renewable assignments of IP address prefixes directly to enterprises, similar to the "swamp space" in IPv4, but perhaps with an annual fee required to allow recapturing unused

As an ISP did you always get the IP chunk you wanted? (was Re: The gaps that NAT is filling)

The IETF is supposed to gather everyone concerned and there is here a controversy on this real life and key/vital point. So the best is to ask in here. If no one says yes, it will mean either there is no felt shortage yes, or that those suffering from shortage do not share in the IETF (why woul

Re: Why people by NATs

I'm sorry to reply so long after the fact, but... On 23-nov-04, at 3:12, Hans Kruse wrote: However, most SOHO sites look for a zero-order level of protection against the random worm trying to connect to an open TCP port on the average windows machine (especially one set up for file/print sharing

Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director

--On Friday, 26 November, 2004 16:40 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the IESG's concern here is that they, rather than the > IAOC would like to designate who the executive director is. > > The executive director is very involved in making the IESG and > process functions

Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Finances and Accounting - principles

--On Friday, 26 November, 2004 20:08 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:16:58 EST, Sam Hartman said: > >> Personally, I do believe that stating some details would help >> me evaluate whether IASA is seperable and would require the >> IETF's consent in order to change the de

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

Carl asks: > how about > > > The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf > of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus > and the continued consent of the community > After a careful process of deliberation, there is a broad-based >

Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

> in these principles I have not directly addressed the feeling of some > people that the IETF needs to be able to "blow the bolts" (as I put it > a while back) with the ISOC quickly if things "go bad" in some way. I > have not done so not because I want to dismiss or ignore such feelings > but b

AdminRest: Blowing the bolts

Hi. As we try to raise other things back to the level of principles, I want to address one that seems to underlie some of the thinking that has led to what I believe to be too-specific, and probably misguided, provisions in the draft. That underlying theme is, more or less, "Suppose ISOC goes cra

AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

Since I and a number of other posters have been asking that the AdminRest document move up a step or two and articulate the basic principles that we want the IETF administrative functions to operate under rather than continue to focus on teh operational details I've tried to put together a set of

Re: The gaps that NAT is filling

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 21:47 +, Greg Skinner wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:11:19 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 07:03 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> Without solutions to these four problems on the horizon, I can't > >> voice any enthusiasm that the larger address