I'm looking for research / surveys on how enterprises and service providers
really use subnetting within their networks. In particular, I'm interested
in the size of subnets that people are regularly using and I'm interested
in both public and private addressed networks (which I'm assuming, perh
Let me give you an example of where this didn't work recently. At San
Diego, we had back-to-back meetings of WREC followed by OPES BoF and CDNP
BoF. For the most part, there was a very large overlap in the attendance.
If you did not forgoe the coffee break and - literally! - run between the
ro
...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
somethi
At 10:49 AM 13/04/00 -0700, Eliot Lear wrote:
>Part of the problem here is that a knife may be used as a food utensil or a
>weapon. Safe handling, however, is always required, and should be
>documented.
Granted.
>I would add two other comments. I tried to locate the RFC for HTTP/0.9,
>but the
g. a single IP address. (i.e. DNS server farms,
firewalls, proxies). As I have said repeatedly, "interception proxies" is
only one of these applications and by no means the most widely used.
Are you confusing this with WCCP (which *only* works with "interception
proxies").
&
Keith,
At 07:59 PM 11/04/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > This was a choice - in some larger sense, if sourcing other-owned IP
> > addresses or TCP connections is considered an architectural problem,
> > needs to come down from above, rather than up from WREC.
>
>sounds like a convenient excuse t
Vernon,
At 04:47 PM 11/04/00 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>Call me a non-team playing scab, but I refuse to the honor the old guild
>work rule that limits the questions I can consider. If sourcing
>other-owned etc. or anything else is an architectural or other problem,
>then professional pride
There has been a lot of discussion about the problems associated with
so-called "interception proxies". This discussion is very much within the
charter of the WREC WG. In fact, we even have a current draft whose sole
purpose is to document such problems.
The known problems draft is at: draft-i
At 02:21 PM 10/04/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > > > The I-D in question has been referred to an existing IETF WG for
> review,
> > >
> > >that assertion was made, but not confirmed by the ADs.
> > >is it really true? it seems odd because it really isn't in scope for
> wrec.
> >
> > Let me jo
At 10:39 AM 10/04/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > The I-D in question has been referred to an existing IETF WG for review,
>
>that assertion was made, but not confirmed by the ADs.
>is it really true? it seems odd because it really isn't in scope for wrec.
Let me jog your memory:
At 06:29 PM 3
I have held off commenting until I saw what the IETF community at large
would have to say. Disclosure: I work for Network Appliance, was involved
in the very early stages (though not latterly) of NECP and fully support
its publication as an Informational RFC. I am also co-chair of WREC.
As has
11 matches
Mail list logo
