A locator by definition must describe a precise location within
a network, such that any router will be able to forward traffic
towards that network using only the information in locator.
Sean,
Towards the network/link or towards the node?
In 8+8 the top 8 bytes are just the locator for
Bush imposed his mailing-list control methods without IESG approval, in
violation of RFC 2418, section 3.2.
Dan,
The spam filtering applied to the namedroppers list is consistent
with the IESG policy on spam control at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Statements.html
What's stopping him from
Anyways, if the admin really considers it impolite (I don't), then
maybe that admin should send the user an opt-in (or opt-out) notice
before (or after) adding the user to the pre-approved list of
posters. (Note: for the subscribers list, the policy should be opt-in).
This is easily
I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately explained by
stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by hand in the first place.
The only acceptable ways to process a message to a standardization
mailing list are
(1) to immediately pass it through unchanged to the subscribers
- in the current situation, even postings from occasional posters
are being blocked. and when postings are blocked, the message is
terse and cryptic (even insulting) and contains no clue about how
to workaround the problem
Do you have specific recent examples of this? If it is the
Apparently, you aren't even aware that your changes will make all non-bind
9 servers non-compliant. Had you been aware of that, it seems you would
have brought this proposal forward something like 3 years ago, before
releasing Bind 9, and before publishing a book on the subject.
A data
Some folks have asked for the slides I presented in the Thursday
plenary.
Harald has made them availble at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/korea/IETF59-multihome.pdf
until they appear in the IETF proceedings at ietf.org
Erik
Tony Hain wrote:
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
crap???
FWIW I'm also concerned that we are doing too many different NAT
traversal protocols. It should be sufficient to just define how IPv6 is
tunneled across NATs and start using more IPv6 in the
Can IETF participants freely access the 802.16 and WIMAX documents, so
that we can understand what this thing is before we have a BoF?
(That's been a sticking point for previous BoFs relating to other
technologies.)
Erik
___
Ietf mailing list
On 02/19/10 05:42 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration
WG (autoconf) to consider the following document:
- 'IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks '
draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt as an Informational RFC
I read this
On 03/26/10 11:04 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Erik,
First of all, the document is *an* addressing model for ad hoc networks.
It does not claim to be the only model. For instance, during working
group discussions it also became apparent that link local addresses
could also be employed, albeit -- as
On 12/17/10 12:55 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
However, it comes very close. If I understand Is-IS security correctly,
the only attack that we would expect a routing protocol to deal with
that it does not is replays. (IS-Is is no worse than anything else
here.) The impact of replays is a denial of
On 9/5/13 8:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What we lack is not the technology, it is demand for deployment.
Exactly, and that is not actionable in the IETF.
Brian,
Some years back when we saw the lack of IPv6 deployment we started with
some IPv4-free plenary time slots - eating our own
13 matches
Mail list logo
