At 00:04 07/12/03, vinton g. cerf wrote:
I don't know what jefsey means by IP zones
I am not from the Cyclades school. May be you know Jean-Louis Grange who
now chairs Eurolinc. He worked with Louis when I first met them in 1978.
Their zone vision is for them to detail.
Louis and I met in 1973
I don't know what jefsey means by IP zones
Louis and I met in 1973 and his datagram ideas, sliding window ideas for flow control,
influenced my thinking about TCP. Gerard LeLann, who worked in Louis Pouzin's group at
IRIA came to Stanford in 1974 to work on the TCP and Internet. IEN 48 refers
At 21:22 02/12/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Hasn't this idea been killed enough? I am a newbie on the Internet
(only been here since 1988) and _I_ am fed up with this discussion.
Hi! Kurt,
did not see that one. I will respond it because it may help you
understanding. I am also a newbie as I
--On Friday, 05 December, 2003 15:35 +0100 jfcm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc BoD)
who you may know. He specified the first mail program at
MIT, the scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones
(recently Vint recalled the Internet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Note that I did not mean my comment as sarcasm or irony. If I would
have, I would have put a :-) after it. I didn't. I am a newbie. I am
still having déja vu.
- - kurtis -
On fredag, dec 5, 2003, at 15:35 Europe/Stockholm, jfcm wrote:
At 21:22
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This being said, I note that this thread is only oriented to
prospective numbering issues. May I take from that that none of the
suggested propositions rises any concern ?
In particular, that there is no problem with two parallel roots file
if
At 00:49 29/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK.. change HQ computer to www.ANYTHINGBIG.com, and change enemy to
random hacker in another country. There's boxes that *have* to be visible
to the world because they provide service and connectivity to the outside
world - and you can't even hand-wave
Jefsey,
You should also entertain the hypothesis that no one has
commented on those issues/suggestions because they are have been
discussed too many times before and are inconsistent with the
visions that drive the Internet. Some of them have even been
the subject of fairly careful evaluation
Dear John,
thank you for your comment even if it does not discuss the internet
national survival kit. I am afraid it continues a qui pro quo where we
often say the same thing but from different points of view (not vision).
Where you look from inside your technology, and me from a user's point
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:20:20 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
jfcm writes:
I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if
they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from
the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer.
Nah
10 matches
Mail list logo
