Hi Jonathan,
Hi all,
I read through the document and was not quite sure why you wrote it.
Everyone knows this already.
Ciao
Hannes
Original Message
Subject:I-D Action:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:30:01 -0800 (PST)
From:
Hi, Hannes,
I can't answer for Jonathan, but I wondered the same thing, and decided that
the answer was probably one of
- well, if we all know this, what are we doing differently now that we know
it?, or
- the GOOD news is that the wasp waist-hourglass is no longer HTTP
[RFC3205], or
- the
- the GOOD news is that the wasp waist-hourglass is no longer HTTP
[RFC3205], or
- the GREAT news is that the wasp waist-hourglass isn't Skype (yet).
The REALLY GREAT news is that when IP ceased to be the wasp waist,
TCP/UDP moved to fill that position which implies that having a
wasp
Michael,
when you think about your comment a bit more then you will realize that it is
not up to us to decide how the hour glass (of deployed protocols) looks like.
Ciao
Hannes
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13.
Hi Spencer,
Hi, Hannes,
I can't answer for Jonathan, but I wondered the same thing,
and decided that
the answer was probably one of
- well, if we all know this, what are we doing differently
now that we know
it?, or
- the GOOD news is that the wasp waist-hourglass is no longer
I wrote this because of a discussion that happened during behave at the
last IETF meeting in Vancouver. There was a presentation in the behave
working group on NAT ALG for SCTP - when run natively over IP - and I
found the entire conversation surreal. The entire problem would have
been moot if
Hi,
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Spencer,
Hi, Hannes,
I can't answer for Jonathan, but I wondered the same thing, and
decided that the answer was probably one of
- well, if we all know this, what are we doing differently now that
we know it?, or
- the GOOD news is that the wasp
However, I would really like to reinforce the point from another note.
There are quite a few contexts where the ability to run a sensible
transport directly over IP is indeed very useful. For example, the
ForCES working group scope is limited (by chart) to the case where the
control element
Well, if history is any guide, eventually people will in fact want to
run this from someplace a little farther away, and then you're in big
trouble. So, I think the advice remains the same. There is no drawback
to having it over UDP to start with - it works when there are no NAT,
and it can
I am sure you can find something to stay for the duration. From
http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5 some added suggestions:
1 - Loews, across the street
2 - Marriott Courtyard, 1/2 block
3 - Marriott Residence Inn, 1/2 block
4 - Hilton Garden Inn, 2-3 blocks
and about 10 other suggestions as
You may want to check out the URL below on our IETF 71 microsite for
some other hotel suggestions. Ray or Marcia may have more info but this
list is pretty comprehensive.
http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13-Feb-2008, at 14:05, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
If you're looking for source material rather than slideware, I imagine
there is no more up-to-date
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
See: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
or for a 'recent' presentation:
On Feb 13, 2008 2:05 PM, Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
Thanks.
Henning
___
Ietf mailing list
Livingood, Jason kirjoitti:
I am sure you can find something to stay for the duration. From
http://ietf71.comcast.net/?page_id=5 some added suggestions:
1 - Loews, across the street
2 - Marriott Courtyard, 1/2 block
At least around noon today (GMT+2) the Marriott Courtyard had rooms left
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
Thanks.
Henning
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 13 feb 2008, at 20:05, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I'm looking for a reasonably recent presentation on the state of IP
address allocation that would be suitable for a class I'm teaching.
If you're interested in the raw data but not so raw that you need to
download and convert it yourself,
I would disagree about no drawback.
The constraints are:
don't invent new transports
have congestion control
and, for an important part of the traffic, do not have retransmission or
significant transmission delay (i.e. perform congestion control by
dropping packets.)
Now, we have SCTP modes
In the other thread, I reminded folks of our IETF 71 microsite @
http://ietf71.comcast.net and the list of hotels there. Please excuse
the fact that this site is off-line for a few hours right now, though it
should be back up in a few hours if all goes according to plan (famous
last words, I
I am sure you can find something to stay for the duration.
The question isn't whether there's other hotels in Philadelphia, of course
there are, although it wouldn't be easy to find something as nice, and
close as the Doubletree for $169 which is quite a good price for Center
City.
I was
Summary: One issue needs resolution.
First, let me start by saying that -09, which was put out for Last Call, was a
substantial
improvement over the -08. I normally read Last Call documents using a diff
tool,
and the number of really solid additions in this update was quite high. I was
a
Ted,
First, let me start by saying that -09, which was put out for Last Call, was
a substantial
improvement over the -08. I normally read Last Call documents using a diff
tool,
and the number of really solid additions in this update was quite high. I
was a bit
surprised, given the
While I disagree with Jonathan's assertion that we should insert an
entirely useless (for all but NAT) UDP header in front of all new protocols
we design, I also disagree with Joel's (implicit) assumption that we can't
implement congestion control on top of UDP.
SCTP mapped on top of UDP would
On Thu, 13 Feb 2008, John L wrote:
I was wondering why the Doubletree doesn't have the block of rooms
available that they promised to the IETF. The reservation agent said she
saw the room block, but it didn't have rooms Thursday like it did for the
rest of the week. Unless there's a vast
My assertion wasn't that we can not implement (or even can not define)
such a thing, but that we had not done so. Thats why the constraint do
not design any new transports was an important part of the puzzle.
Dan Wing has pointed to an I-D that has started to fill that hole.
Yours,
Joel
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG
(tls) to consider the following document:
- 'The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 '
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
26 matches
Mail list logo
