Hi Jaghori
Thanks for you response.
Actually R1 and R3 routers are our simulation routers. Simply those routers are
responding TCP packets and BGP messages to maintain the session with R2.
Our application simulates like BGP router.
Here R1 establishes IBGP connection against R2.
Similarly
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term
implications about what is being discussed.
Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-pressure
group-think with no serious analysis of the long term implications about
what is being discussed.
Am 22.11.2008 um 06:07 schrieb Fred Baker:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term
implications about what is being discussed.
Yes, there is a very clear
I would encourage a discussion on what overall services and
architectures we are looking at for the future of the Internet. I see
mainly three camps, the ones being interested in situations where the
ISP is in strong control (and responsibilities) over quality,
addressing, services etc. I
Hi Eric,
I would like to be part of that group.
My little network is connected to the internet
via a NAT router and I could not live without
it because daily renumbering wont do.
On the other hand that NAT-box is the biggest
obstacle between my network and IPv6.
I would like to help design a
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
Elwyn,
Thank you for the in-depth review!
Authors, when will you be addressing these issues?
Jari
Elwyn Davies wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Hi all,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) '
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-19.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David
Extension) to Proposed Standard
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Email Filtering: Ihave Extension '
draft-freed-sieve-ihave-03.txt as a
11 matches
Mail list logo
