Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The hard part is coming up with a way to do the host/location mapping
in a way that is simple, fast, cheap, secure, flexible and reliable.
Wouldn't we all start deploying, e.g., HIP tomorrow if we had a solution for
this? And, how might that solution be any
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Iljitsch;
On 12-dec-03, at 22:24, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Does that mean that Path MTU was badly designed, because it failed to
take into account stupid firewalls?
Yes, PMTUD was badly designed.
No disagreement here.
Path MTU disovery was implemented very poorly because
Tony,
Tony Hain wrote:
As far as redefining 224/4; it is likely going to be impossible to redefine
this space as no one really knows what it is being used for.
Did you mean to say 224/4, or 240/4 - or perhaps both?
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Hello Harald,
I had a question on this that may be somewhat related to Pekka's.
On the final page of the document, we find:
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
AS IS basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS
puzzled by what Disclaimer of Validity could mean,
.e.g., could it mean that everything that appears in the document
before it is invalid? Would appreciate clarification on this.
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 20. mai 2004 17:35 -0700 Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 21. mai 2004 11:30 -0700 Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm still a bit puzzled by what Disclaimer of Validity could mean,
.e.g., could it mean that everything that appears in the document
before it is invalid? Would appreciate clarification on this.
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS - Where is J. Flemming when you need him anyway, I want to get back to good
old fashioned trolling
be careful what you wish for ...
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose that, as a result, we end up with no meetings for six months or a year, no organized support for the IESG, and lots of us scrambling around to try to maintain mailing lists and archives on a volunteer basis. Would the IETF pull through? Maybe.
Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3819.txt was published in July (blush!)... (snip) ... and it is a BCP ...
How does this work relate to RFC3150 (BCP48) and RFC3155 (BCP50),
e.g., I don't see any "Obsoletes:"statements in the header?
Thanks - Fred
