leo vegoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's clear that the wording in the IPv6 policy document
should be improved. It's a bit ambiguous at the moment. We're keen to
help improve the text.
An extra don't slipped in there.
Sorry,
--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services
On 9 Dec, 2003, at 2:20, Jeroen Massar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[2 mails into one again]
Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% Expect to see routers being optimized that will only route
% the upper 64bits of the address, so you might not want to do
% anything smaller
Hi Bill,
Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Leo, this is the text we use for IX delegations. For CI uses, transit of
said prefix is a valid injection.
--
Exchange Point Announcement Statement
Our statement regarding the injection
Interesting exchange. As someone who has spent over 20 years in the UN
system, I find the notion that putting Internet governance into the hands of the
UN system will somehow remove it from the reach of the US government droll (also
the idea that the ITU can manage a mailing list better
Ole J Jacobsen writes:
Yep, works fine for me, Stef. Time to switch providers?
:-)
Time to disable ECN?
$ telnet www.isoc.org 80
Trying 206.131.249.182...
^C
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; su
Password:
# ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_ecn_permitted 0
# telnet www.isoc.org 80
Joe Abley writes:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-turk-bgp-dos-04.txt
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/routing-discussion/current/msg00688.html
draft-marques-idr-flow-spec-00.txt seems to be sort-of a generalized
version of this (which doesn't necessarily mean that
The real issue is whether an ECN bit is reserved, or not reserved.
it's not reserved -- the ECN bits are assigned by RFC 3168
i.e. ECN is a proposed standard and the bits that it uses in the IP header
are fully assigned
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that the most common failure mode is *not*
getting an RST back, but getting NOTHING back because
some squirrely firewall between here and there is silently
dropping packets with bits it doesn't understand.
Ah ... that would definitely be a bug with
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:47:03 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner) said:
The real issue is whether an ECN bit is reserved, or not reserved.
it's not reserved -- the ECN bits are assigned by RFC 3168
i.e. ECN is a proposed standard and the bits that it uses in the IP header
are fully
Yes, but if you're a firewall that stepped into a temporal stasis box
before 3168 was published, you're still thinking that the bits are
reserved,
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
Scott
I cannot believe it !
I raised this thing to ISOC more than a year ago!!! I told them in person at INET in Washington too...
They haven't done a dam thing since...
If you look on the Internet there is a list of organisations not ECN compliant, you will find ISOC entry.
How can such a
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Yes, but if you're a firewall that stepped into a temporal stasis box
before 3168 was published, you're still thinking that the bits are
reserved,
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
Yes, such junk no doubt has worse defects than
Scott Bradner writes:
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
It's important to understand that the Internet is not monolithic, and no
matter what the latest and greatest standards may be, there will always
be parts of the Net that run older software. Expecting the entire Net
to
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:22:16AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
I cannot believe it !
I raised this thing to ISOC more than a year ago!!! I told them in
person at INET in Washington too...
They haven't done a dam thing since...
If you look on the Internet there is a list of
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:06:06PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
I also don't see why a firewall would drop packets just because reserved
bits are set, although I can see why it might be a configurable option
for the most paranoid users.
There are a lot of really dumb, dumb, dumb firewall
Yes, but if you're a firewall that stepped into a temporal stasis box
before 3168 was published, you're still thinking that the bits are
reserved, and that the Japanese haven't surrendered, and you should
fight on, discarding evil packets that have the reserved bits set
Actually, it has
Theodore Ts'o writes:
There are a lot of really dumb, dumb, dumb firewall authors out there,
that's why
Actually, Sally Floyd's explanation makes a lot more sense.
The dumb authors, I think, are those who built Linux implementations
that doggedly attempt to negotiate ECN and are
This exchange is rather interesting, since it seems to focus on my
system, which failed to get a useful connection at one point in time,
but did get one the next day when I tried it again, without making
any changes.
So, now it is argued that I need to fix my system. It has also been
stated
There are a lot of really dumb, dumb, dumb firewall authors out there,
that's why
Actually, Sally Floyd's explanation makes a lot more sense.
The dumb authors, I think, are those who built Linux implementations
that doggedly attempt to negotiate ECN and are unprepared for cases
where it
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:48:44PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Check the archives, this gets raised periodically, and ISOC is simply
perenially unable to fix it. I think I raised some 12-18 months ago,
and there has still gotten no action by ISOC. I think this falls in
the so what else is
I was curious enough to read the contents of this URL, (about the U.N. about
to meet to do something or another with the information society):
http://www.itu.int/wsis
Site barely moves. We have good bandwidth and its 400 bit/S, says my browser.
So, for fun, I tried:
http://www.alpo.com/
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:10:44PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
The dumb authors, I think, are those who built Linux implementations
that doggedly attempt to negotiate ECN and are unprepared for cases
where it does not work, even though it's unreasonable to assume that the
entire world
Mark Smith writes:
Firewalls could be considered to be performing QA for defined
protocol fields. I agree that reserved fields shouldn't be QA'ed for
their default values.
Except that a change from default values can be an excellent indicator
that you are dealing with a software version
Theodore Ts'o writes:
What Linux implemented was specifically what was specified by RFC
3168, no more no less.
What FreeBSD implemented actually works. Which is preferable?
The issue is whether or not intermediate hosts are
justified in dropping packets just because some
bits that were
Back to Reality:
The problem is that ISOC firewalls are not up to standards. Can someone
go to knock on ISOC door in Virginia and propose to help them to solve
this particular problem. And take some pictures too, I'm curious to see
what they really have...
This list is full of propeller heads,
Title: Re: [isdf] 1. New Report: Understanding WSIS (Hans Klein)
Sounds all good...
So let's start:
Can someone open up a website with www.tikiwiki.org on it?
I would do it but I'm in the wrong part of this world for bandwidth
Cheers
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:52, S Woodside wrote:
Franck Martin writes:
The problem is that ISOC firewalls are not up to standards.
Whose standards?
27 matches
Mail list logo
