Hello Everybody,
Can anybody tell me , from where can i get an RMON agent.
I need it badly.
thnqs in anticipation,
Saurabh Dave
Sean,
there were several interesting talks in the ietf plenary last night and
i'd also like to respond
1/ randy's "woah, the DNS is bust" talk
solution - put your named boot file on your web server and set
up robots.txt right
get the 15 or so most popular search engines to start
...and speaking of bad manners, I noticed that there is a resurgence of
people talking mobile-phone calls in meetings. I was only there for one day
but it happened twice in three meetings. Another annoyance is those who
allow it to ring and then cancel the call (presumably using CLI or
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Sean Doran wrote:
So, why are people deploying them?
Just to name two...
1) With NAT I ask for much smaller address spaces. Consequently, I don't
have to disclose my network details, deployment is less likely to be
delayed, and both my non-recurring and recurring cost
Look, over a year ago, I was made painfully aware of the of the automated
vacation notice propagating emails to members of lists. It was never my
intent to inconvenience anyone by using the vacation notices function,
rather just the opposite. I'm an Outlook user as it's the corporate standard
on
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:55:48 +0100, Sean Doran said:
So, why are people deploying them?
They are so awful, that it must only happen when people have NO OTHER OPTION.
A quick analysis of most of the evils of the last 2 millenia or so would
reveal that most were perpetrated for one of several
www.citycash.nu
I see we're about to embark on the 7th iteration of the NAT mail wars.
I don't believe anything new is going to come out of it. Last night's
arguments at the microphones were quoted from previous mail. Could you
take it somewhere else? Is there an alt.nat group?
i can just see it when the aliens land and ask how to connect to our
infrastructure, we'll have to say
oh we used to have an internet, but it
lost something in the translation
j.
is the video shown at the beginning of the plenary last night available
anywhere?
who's volumetric 3-d network mapping stuff was that in there?
and who's the pleasant loonies behind the vid anyways?
thanks,
JeffH
You do not consider IPv6 an option?
ipv6 is working just fine even here at IETF49 venue, it's so much more
convenient than IPv4, for couple of reasons.
- DHCPv4 lease time is set to 10 minutes, and we keep changing IPv4
address. if I suspend my laptop, go to
The pleasent loonies are from caida. Dr Claffy and co.
joelja
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is the video shown at the beginning of the plenary last night available
anywhere?
who's volumetric 3-d network mapping stuff was that in there?
and who's the pleasant loonies behind
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Tony Dal Santo wrote:
Dennis Glatting wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Sean Doran wrote:
So, why are people deploying them?
Just to name two...
1) With NAT I ask for much smaller address spaces. Consequently, I don't
have to disclose my network details,
If it isn't an address issue, is it a routing issue? Is it that the
routing tables/protocols/hardware can't handle the large number of
routes? Are ISPs refusing to carry reasonable routes? Seems to me if
the entire address space was broken up into subnets of 4096, there
would be about 1
For an industry that has been predicated on queuing theory that permits
managing data traffic through moments of transient congestion, the idea
that the best way to achieve Quality of Service is simply to throw excess
bandwidth at the problem is quaint.
On the other hand, that simplistic
At 11:47 AM 12/14/2000, you wrote:
and who's the pleasant loonies behind the vid anyways?
Pleasant loonies?
Brian Lloyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.530.676.1113 - voice
+1.360.838.9669 - fax
Dennis Glatting wrote:
If it isn't an address issue, is it a routing issue? Is it that the
routing tables/protocols/hardware can't handle the large number of
routes? Are ISPs refusing to carry reasonable routes? Seems to me if
the entire address space was broken up into subnets of 4096,
A couple of laptop power supplies, a mouse and a USB cable have been
left behind in the terminal room. If you've missing an item like
this, drop me a note, and I'll see if I have it.
--
john noerenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see we're about to embark on the 7th iteration of the NAT mail wars.
I don't believe anything new is going to come out of it.
I wish I were so optimistic to think that nothing new would come
of NATs...unfortunately, the NAT group keeps inventing more cruft.
Keith
As a representative of of one of the co-hosts for this meeting, I am
equally gratified and terrorized to have the distinction hosting the
largest IETF meeting to date (I fully expect this meeting to be
surpassed soon). Fred's summary of the diversity of the IETF was
truly impressive.
But in
Given that the overcrowding at this IETF was the worst ever, and really
interfered with work, not to mention the social event ...
Building on a previous suggestion:
* When you register for the IETF, you specify which WGs you are
interested in in priority order.
* Simultaneously WG Chairs
Tony Dal Santo wrote:
What exactly is the state of the IPv4 "address pool"?
Hilarie Orman, Scott Marcus and I will be working together over the next
few weeks to get a more up-to-date view of the world. As soon as we get
something together, we'll announce it to the list.
small two button usb mouse and sony usb cable in black bag?
actually left in plenary last night?
randy
* Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms,
giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG
chairs). Once a room is full no one is added. OK, this is the
cruddiest part, but leave the details for now.
Eso some people get cut off even
Frank,
This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before
you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to
tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that
are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much
on the method used. I think we could react
I think this is a really, really, really bad idea. This is my first IETF.
I had read all the drafts of what interested me before going here. I
thought that was enough. Boy was I wrong. I am now also subscribed to the
mailiglists...
However, I have been to several of the other gatherings of the
(Continuing this for its value in exploring the issues ...)
On 14 Dec 2000 at 16:57 -0800, Jelena Mirkovic apparently wrote:
* Software magically takes registrant WG preferences and fills rooms,
giving priority to those who have been active (purely according to WG
chairs). Once a room is
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Frank,
This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before
you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to
tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that
are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much
on the
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Geoff Huston wrote:
The rate of growth in the table and the prefix length distribution
in the table both point to the growth of small prefixes (/24)
as a major factor in the growth of the routing table.
There are strong indications that NAT is one factor behind this
But in retrospect, one thing he said bothered me greatly. He
mentioned there were representatives of some five hundred different
organizations at this meeting. That too is impressive. But it's
that word "representative" I find disquieting.
We are here not as corporate
I think this is a really, really, really bad idea. This is my first IETF.
I had read all the drafts of what interested me before going here. I
thought that was enough. Boy was I wrong. I am now also subscribed to the
mailiglists...
However, I have been to several of the other gatherings of
At 03:58 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Scott Brim wrote:
Building on a previous suggestion:
Just to be clear, my suggestion is diametrically opposed to the list that
you specified.
You are suggesting very tight queue management. By the mid-70's, Kleinrock
showed that these mechanisms do not work in the
Hello:
(I copy this to the poisson list, since I am somehow blocked from
the IETF list).
I am fully understand what your concern is. But,
- what should those "corporate representative" do?
- where should they go?
best regards,
--
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
But it's that word "representative" I find disquieting.
I second everything you said John.
How does the IETF prevent a "RAMBUS" type scenario where
a company sits in on IETF, copies the technologies,
patents them, waits for everyone to adopt them, and then
sues everyone for infringement?
This
Itojun;
You do not consider IPv6 an option?
ipv6 is working just fine even here at IETF49 venue, it's so much more
convenient than IPv4, for couple of reasons.
We can't use IPv6 until multihoming issues are properly solved
and global routing table size and the number of ASes
He also introduced the ADs as "name from employer" after the IAB
had been introduced solely by name.
I don't like the word "representatives" either.
But employers who support employees' IESG and IAB participation certainly
deserve to be recognized, since such an employee will spend a
At 3:34 PM -0800 12/14/00, John W Noerenberg II wrote:
We are here not as corporate representatives, but as individuals
committed to building the best Internet we can. Becoming part of a
working group means you leave your company badge at the door. As
the Internet has become more and more
ipv6 is working just fine even here at IETF49 venue, it's so much more
convenient than IPv4, for couple of reasons.
We can't use IPv6 until multihoming issues are properly solved
and global routing table size and the number of ASes are
controlled to be below reasonable upper
hi all,
i'm late in giving my contribution to this subject, as i'm on the other side of
world...
regarding NAT, its not horrible at all. as u all must be knowing its the solution
that was provided to the problem of reducing IPv4 addresses. Yes, there is a
shortage of ipv4 addresses. Initially
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:11:25 EST, Kyle Lussier said:
How does the IETF prevent a "RAMBUS" type scenario where
a company sits in on IETF, copies the technologies,
patents them, waits for everyone to adopt them, and then
sues everyone for infringement?
They can't copy-and-patent the technology
Did we not just have this whole debate on the Poisson list or is this a
new flavor?
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972
GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On
Hi,
nice to notice that the IETF WLAN is also working here at the
Embassy Suites hotel, which is far (ab. 2 miles) away from the
Sheraton... Is here a secret/uninformed access point or is the range
of WLAN this awesome on this side of the world?-)
BR,
Teemu
42 matches
Mail list logo
