Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Just to add my experience. I find that in order to get
better airline rates I am forced to travel into town on
Saturday. So I'm in town on Sunday with little to do
other than catch up on work that really should have been
done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on
Don't feed the troll!
Bonney Kooper wrote:
The current registration fee of $575 is outrageously
high. Even though IETF claims to be an open forum with
no membership fee - you need $575*3=$1725 per year for
registration fee alone for attending IETF sessions.
I paid out of my own pocket, and I do not think that
It would also help a lot not to discourage people that are willing to
volunteer. If what you want is your name on a RFC, then the IETF is the
place to be. If you want to develop a protocol, I highly recommend a
mailing list outside of the IETF, where work technical work can be
accomplished
Randy Bush wrote:
of course. but making milestones, especially in a culture reknown
for poor estimation, seems to be a rather minor aspect of producing
quality. and i believe the latter to be far more important, and to
be more difficult to judge, motivate, guide, ...
I don't call waiting
Dave Crocker wrote:
and, by the way, there is plenty of experience suggesting that
time pressure often improves quality. it focuses the group
and emphasizes near-term utility. within discussions about
project management, it is usually recognized that milestones
are not merely for
Dave Crocker wrote:
Query to the group: If we believe we should not hold working
groups to their milestones, why bother to have those milestones?
Same question for charters: If we believe we should not hold working groups to their
charters, why bother to have those charters?
Michel.
Frame is the PDU name for layer 2.
Layer Name PDU
7 Application message
6 Presentation message
5 Session message
4 Transport Segment
3 Network Packet/Datagram
2 Data Link Frame
1 Physical Bit
Michel.
-Original
Simon Leinen wrote:
What is needed is some sort of feedback loop that
weighs the interest of multi-homing entities against
its impact on remote parts of the infrastructure.
Tony Hain wrote:
That is the basis of the multi-6 wg requirements
document. Unfortunately there are so many
Bill Cunningham wrote:
APEX core data is referred to as datagrams,
a term denoting the network layer. Surely APEX
core data has to be packeted, even if not framed.
Dave Crocker wrote:
The term 'datagram' does not specify a particular
level in the communications hierarchy.
It is a mode,
Bill Cunningham wrote
If datagram and packet is the same, then what are frames?
TCP is carried by PPP frames. I'm not sure about APEX (rfc 3340)
This is not new, is it what we are referring to?
+---+--+--+
! # ! Layer name ! PDU !
Bill,
Bill Cunnigham wrote:
When someone says to me 'datagram.' I don't know what level
of TCP/IP they're talking about. It could be IP datagrams at
Internet layer, or UDP datagrams at Transport layer. Datagram
only defines a connectionless protocol according to rfc 1122.
This is a good
Bill,
This slide is confusing, for sure. The reason I posted the link was the
comparison between the OSI and the TCP/IP models.
Michel.
From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
http://dast.nlanr.net/Training/DCWJuly99/kai_tcpip/sld008.htm
I looked at this page of one of the links
Bill,
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I think the main goal is to compete with
OSI's much more defined model.
What's wrong with the OSI model?
Michel.
kre / Bill,
kre wrote:
I'd actually much prefer for OSI to win the war of the
definitions. Rigid definitions tend to constrain thinking
to fit into the patterns defined. We're much better off
just having a rough idea what things mean when it gets to
this level.
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I
Dave,
Could you share what motivated the choice of the word datagram for
APEX? What puzzles me is that APEX rides on top of TCP, a
connection-oriented protocol. APEX might be stateless, but if it rides
on top of TCP how could you call it connectionless (which would be why
one uses the word
Bill,
Michel Py wrote:
The bottom line is: lots of people are going to continue
using the OSI model. We don't need two different models.
Fine let them use OSI or whatever they choose. But if TCP/IP has
incompatibilies with token-ring LANS, this should probably be
worked on. I believe
Mastaka / Bill,
Michel Py wrote:
In terms of design, if you do TCP/IP *only* design, the TCP/IP model
is
probably enough. However, the Internet is not only TCP/IP. Carriers,
for
example, don't care much if their fiber transports TCP/IP or IPX or
voice or video or GigE.
Masataka Ohta wrote
Vint,
vinton g. cerf wrote:
Michel,
your drawing of TCP/IP is NOT the model I used in
the design of TCP/IP.
[Thanks for the historical precisions]
My understanding is that the TCP/IP model is de-facto, opposed to de
jure for the OSI model.
Below are the top ten matches searching for
Eric Tomson wrote:
I think that such terms as Internet, Intranet and
Extranet DO owe their existence to the wide
implementation and use of TCP/IP.
So - IMHO - you don't have to worry about TCP/IP to
survive and compete (particularly against SPX/IPX
and NetBIOS/NetBEUI). ;)
TCP/IP DOES RUN
Harald,
I have two dumb questions about IETF-56:
1. My understanding is that there is no host and no terminals. Does it
mean no wireless setup too?
2. Is there a reason the meeting location is not posted with the dates?
Thanks
Michel.
Steve Bellovin wrote:
But if you mean the hotel -- that's always released a bit later.
That's what I meant. Would be nice to know in advance, for those of us
that shop for price and want to book a hotel within walking distance of
the IETF meeting.
Michel.
Harald,
The tradition is that the hotel information is not
released until the negotiation of the room block has
been completed.
I can understand why, but it has been short notice. Posting the location
as soon as it is available would be appreciated.
Some of people are beginning to make their
Margaret,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
[snip]
I agree with the rest of your post, however this concerns me:
Does ISOC engage a professional fundraising firm?
If not, maybe that should be considered.
My experience with some of these guys is that they bring only pennies on
the dollar and are
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Seeing that route filtering only gets done automaticaly for
the last couple of years and the fact that that is only a
route + ASN mapping I don't see why all of a sudden there
will be some magical solution for renumbering complete networks.
Fred Baker wrote:
Really? I
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Thanks Michel for listing the things that I once forgot too.
Let me guess: until you actually had to renumber a large one :-) with a
flag day maybe :-D
In my experience, the pain is not with your own network but with
external partners such as supply chain and distribution.
Ted Hardie wrote:
I think we then to consider whether the current need
is for: non-routed globally unique space or for
something else. If the answer is non-routed globally
unique space, then the follow-on question is Why not
get globally unique space and simply decide not to
route it?.
Fred / Stephen,
Michel Py wrote:
- Customers that are stupid enough...
Fred Baker wrote:
Someone else's stupidity is not my problem.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
As a vendor, every customer problem is your problem.
Go visit some Fortune 500 customers and ask:
Are you aware you won't be able
it?.
Michel Py wrote:
Because such thing does not exist, it's called PI and
is not available to IPv6 end-sites. And if it ever is,
it will cost money or other annoyances to obtain.
Ted Hardie wrote:
I don't think something needs to be provider independent
to fit this bill. Getting a slice
Eliot,
Eliot Lear wrote:
What you say is possible, and has happened. But dumb
things happen. Those dumb things could happen with non
site-local addresses as well.
More limited, that's the point. Not perfect, but better than unregulated
anarchy. However, between a network design that does not
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
We, or more specifically, the upstream ISP or an RIR, can
tell the ISP that things will go badly for them if they
permit un-routable addresses to leak into the public
Internet. The only difference I can see between what I
think is your SL address preference and
Eliot Lear wrote:
Right up till the point where two companies start communicating
with one another directly with site-locals.
No, no, no. That's exactly what we don't want site-locals to do.
Site-locals are not to communicate outside their own site, period.
Michel.
Margaret,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
(2) Institutionalizing the need for split DNS. I understand
that some network administrators choose to use split DNS
today, but that doesn't meant that we want to build a
requirement for split DNS it into the IPv6 architecture.
I don't think
Paul,
Paul Vixie wrote:
[large snap]
my own ideas have to do with trustbrokers, certificates for both
mailboxes and transfer/relay agents, and provable confidence in
subjective values. but maybe all that's just crap, and what's
actually necessary and sufficient would have a completely
Peter,
Peter Deutsch wrote:
Hopefully, I can eventually control my fascination with this
particular blinking light and stop feeding this particular troll.
Self-consciousness of it is half done, the other half is to put him in
the troll box so you don't see the troll's traffic and therefore
Fam. van den Berg wrote:
Just a simple question: Can spam mail be caused by
violating RFC 2821?
What do you mean by violating?
Michel.
Tony Hain wrote:
AOL (as one example of many) has declared ranges of IP addresses
marked 'residential' as invalid for running a particular application.
In this case SMTP, but which app is next?
An especially sensitive topic here as most of us operate their own SMTP
server off the home cable
Peter Deutsch wrote:
As we say in French, Ca c'est des horse patooties.
I'm French. We don't say things that polite.
Peter, stop feeding the trolls; it's not good for your blood pressure.
Go home. Have a beer.
Michel.
Paul,
Given what you wrote just above (which I agree with), what is
your assessment that a system such as what you have in mind
would successfully reach IETF consensus?
Paul Vixie wrote:
one developed outside ietf.
I have myself some experience in this domain, but I will get back to you
Peter,
[I like Peter even more after he's had a beer]
Peter Deutsch wrote:
You probably know this already, but for those who don't, Brad
Templeton proposed this scheme a while ago, based upon am
micropayments model and called it estamps. See:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/estamps.html
Rob,
Rob Austein wrote
Traffic statistics (as seen from my cave, your mileage
may vary) for the last seven days on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing list.
Thanks for posting this. I was about to join another poster in saying
that you should not have posted the bytes; however, on second thought,
John,
With all due respect, I will repeat to you the message I had for Peter
Deutsch two days ago:
- Stop feeding the trolls, it's not good for your blood pressure.
Besides, you do not have to justify who you are or what you did in here.
- Go home, take a deep breath, have a beer, relax.
Michel.
. As for the trolls, if they had read
the writing on the wall as posted by Eric, myself and other subscribers,
they would not be in the troll box.
Michel.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 4:58 PM
To: Michel Py
Cc: IETF Discussion
Charlie,
Charles E. Perkins wrote:
What if the market were shaped by:
- using questionable business practices to
cripple/kill competitors?
- predatory/stupid legislation? (e.g., efforts to
outlaw French technology)
- selective failure to enforce existing legislation?
- powerful and
Phill,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Simply repeating the end to end dogma is not going to provide
a solution. The internet people are using is not end to end.
NAT boxes and firewalls play an important and necessary
security role. We need a standard for a superNAT box that
provides both security
Eric,
I agree with most of your post but there is something that you have not
grasped IMHO.
It is true that dissimulating the private (RFC1918?) address does not
achieve much in terms of security: in order to access:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/ you do not need to know nor
care
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
The point I was making is that if an NNTP connection fails because
the firewall is *configured* to say 'None Shall Pass' (insert Monty
Python .wav here ;) then that is *proper* behavior. If a VOIP
connection fails because the NAT is saying 'None Shall Pass', then
Valdis,
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
And unfortunately, a lot of the Just Does Not Work stuff are
applications like H.323 and VOIP that Joe Sixpack actually
*might* be interested in.
Unfortunately, there is no single reason [protocol or app xyz] does not
work over NAT. When [protocol or app xyz]
Daniel,
I agree with the rest of your post, however
Since NAPT uses stateful inspection to operate,
I think I don't agree with this. I would say that NAPT is a stateful
process but not that it uses inspection. By inspection I understand a
more intelligent process that decapsulates packets and
Eric,
Eric Rescorla wrote:
The fact that a large number of people have chosen
to use NAT is a strong argument that BC. (Here's
where the invocation of revealed preference comes in).
This is not the point. What you are saying is that since BC it makes
NAT OK. What I am saying (and possibly
Richard Welty wrote:
the needed three legged firewall, bridging two interfaces and
using NAT on the third one, is rather more complicated than i
wanted to deploy for a budget-constrained customer. neither i
nor my client feel that there was a much of a win here, but
there weren't any other
Keith,
Michel Py wrote:
IMHO, here is the deal: IPv4 NAT does suck, but there is
nothing we can do to remove it; so the only worthy
efforts are 1) maybe try to make it less worse (I will
not go as far as saying better) and 2) let's not make
the same mistake with IPv6.
Keith Moore wrote
Ted,
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
So 30 static IP addresses, with a slower service, is over
*five* times more expensive, and over twice as expensive
as faster service with only 2 static IP addresses.
As much as I hate NAT, from an aesthetic perspective,
using two static IP addresses and a NAT box
Simon,
Simon Woodside wrote:
Is it (or could it be) possible to make an equally workable
{local address isolation system}, at a low price, that
doesn't introduce the drawbacks of NAPT.
If you are talking about the actual hardware, yes. It already exists,
just a matter of how it is
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or
unauthorized usage.
Michel Py wrote:
I do not agree with this. The primary purpose of firewalls is
to protect BOTH the network and the hosts.
the reason
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
I believe you should buy or write applications that ensure their
own security and protect the security of the machines on which
they are hosted. I believe you should buy computing platforms
that provide facilities to isolate applications from one another,
so that
Stephen,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The biggest problem I've seen in Enterprise environments
is that people running Internet-accessible servers (e.g.
in the DMZ) often have no interest or motivation to follow
security policy; security is secondary to functionality.
Sigh. Yes; to the point that
Michael Richardson wrote:
but firewall vendors have screwed that up so badly, that
this is now better done by dedicated IDS.
I don't pretend to be a firewall expert but the IDS I use (and pasted
examples of earlier) is built-in the firewall and works for my needs. I
don't care much about an
Keith Moore wrote:
Which is why I've done some work to try to make the barrier to
adopting IPv6 on an existing IPv4 network as low as possible.
What you don't realize is that the only thing that you have left to do
is to get 6to4 implemented in NAT boxes. If every Linksys had 6to4 code
and was
Jonathan,
Jonathan Hogg wrote:
Aren't Microsoft already standardizing this with their Universal
Plug and Play (UPnP) architecture?
I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I believe the concept is
that applications that understand this can communicate with the
router (the NAPT box in the
what you propose would make every app NAT-sensitive, and
increase the rate of failures due to intermediaries that
intercept protocol interactions and botch them.
You do have a point here. Stupid idea it was.
Michel.
Eliot Lear wrote:
I'm writing my drafts using EMACS and Marshall's tool. That allows
for generation of HTML, NROFF, and text. The HTML allows for
hyperlinks, which is REALLY nice.
XML is the way to go, no doubt about it.
Michel.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
It turned out that OSIRUSOFT had gone belly-up, and started
declaring that the world consists of spammers. or something.
Indeed; any lookup against relays.osirusoft.com returned a positive for
a while. This was aggravated by the fact that in at least one SMTP
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened
and given at least the capability of passing DNS names
and maybe some syntax that would permit clean extension
to future identifiers.
It seems to me that this does not buy us much if it is limited to FTP.
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
My ambitious in raising these questions are _very_ limited
and, in particular, I don't see this as a back door to
solving the non-DNS, topology-independent, persistent
identifier problem. (It seems to me that needs to be solved
through the front door, or not at
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
My goal is precisely to avoid ending up with either two
standards or eight verbs. Explanation of the latter:
IPv4 IPv6 self-referent DNS StableID
addressaddress
RFC959 2428 ??????
Verb PORT,PASV
Mark / John,
Mark Allman wrote:
Should we *add* a couple more verbs to FTP that are to be
more generic than the current verbs and allow for DNS names
and other labels we may come up with the in the future?
(With the intent that the new verbs and the old verbs could
co-exist.)
Then I'd
Harald,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the procedures,
that
Christian,
Michel Py wrote:
There many people, including some that actually _wrote_
the procedures, that disagree with you.
Christian Huitema wrote:
Please explain or retract. I was the note-taker during that
particular session, and I don't recall ever stating that the
chair's decision
Leif Johansson wrote:
Tell that to the root zone operators and brace for the reaction.
Root zone operators, meaning like Verisign?
Michel.
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
(1) A set of semantics and expectations about,
e.g., applications behavior, otherwise known
as the feature.
(2) An address range.
Is that correct, or is that controversial too?
It looks correct to me although I will detail the feature part below.
Now part of
Kurtis,
Michel Py wrote:
- Do not flood root servers with reverse lookup queries for
private addresses (I want my traceroutes to work on the
inside of the network too, so I long ago configured reverse
lookup for private addresses on my internal DNS servers).
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Say
Kurtis,
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
There are a hell of a lot traceroutes going on then...
As pointed out by Keith privately, traceroutes are not the only culprit.
Telnet to a host from a private IP, it does a reverse lookup on your IP,
etc. Basically everything that triggers a reverse lookup
Keith Moore wrote:
great. now we'll have NAT boxes intercepting
outgoing DNS traffic also.
That was not my point. My point was to have a DNS server in the inside
configured for reverse lookup of private IPs. What you mention would
help though.
Michel.
hops vs. flooding the roots with
bogus requests. Besides, for what I have seen these ISPs that use
RFC1918 space for links do not provide reverse lookup for them anyway
:-(
Michel Py wrote:
That box could also accept dynamic address registration that is
default in the latest MS products
Intercept would be nice in the following situations:
- When Joe Blow has configured a static IP and static DNS servers
that
point to the ISP's DNS servers instead of the NAT box.
Keith Moore wrote:
so the next time Joe Blow is trying to figure out why a particular
DNS server isn't
In many cases, the new temporary password is the email address you are
subscribed to. Not guaranteed to work, but worth a shot.
Michel.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:07 PM
To: [EMAIL
Randall Gellens wrote:
I have been consistently unable to maintain a connection
for more than a very few minutes, usually not even lon
enough to establish a VPN tunnel and fetch one message.
The 802.11 coverage comes and goes; the APs seem to
vanish and I see nothing for a while, eventually
Melinda Shore wrote:
although frankly this is one particular area where
there's a clear and growing divide between this
community and the network administrator community
(particularly enterprise and residential).
Because this community has long ignored real problems and followed the
lead of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 61st IETF meeting will be held over
the dates of November 7-12, 2004.
The location has not been finalized.
Pekka Savola wrote:
How about Minneapolis!
:-D
At least there's a Subway nearby,
There is also an excellent steak house just the other side of the
Melinda,
Melinda Shore wrote:
The problems we're seeing from NATs - and they're considerable
It depends of the situation; don't generalize, the reality of numbers is
against you. The number of sites where NAT works just fine is orders of
magnitude greater than the number of sites where it
Joe Touch wrote:
Since we've been lacking a similar non-NAT solution,
we (ISI) built one called TetherNet, as posted earlier:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet
What is this beside a box that setups a tunnel? What's the difference
with:
Armando,
Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed.
However I wonder which kind of instant messaging you are
referring to, as all the ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Armando L. Caro Jr.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used MSN). Sure, you can do
normal
Keith Moore
Somehow I doubt the IETF list cares enough to
want to keep reading this exchange,
There's definitely some of the readers that are tired of reading you.
Michel.
Fred Baker wrote:
Many ISPs are thinking in terms of VoIP as a next generation
business, the one after selling bandwidth. But there are
issues with that as well...
You must be talking about ISPs that are not in bed with a phone company;
at this point in time I don't see how they can compete.
Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
Pardon me if I'm missing something obvious here, but
couldn't one just use either XMPP or Simple for presence,
associate your server name with a Jabber/Simple ID, and
automatically have your server findable via these
general presence protocols?
One not only
Tony Hain wrote:
You won't get the development community to pay attention
to the simplicity afforded by IPv6 until the IETF stops
wasting time trying to extend a dead protocol.
If one in {IPv4,IPv6} could be qualified as dead, it's IPv6. If it was
not for IPv4, the majority of this list would
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Anyway, the point is that successful networking
technologies don't take 10 years to succeed. They
either catch on, or they don't, and after 10
years this one has not caught on.
And as of the DoD requirements, those of us that are old enough will
remember the ADA
Hayriye Altunbasak wrote:
Should not you first investigate the reason why
IPv6 is not successful in terms of deployment
(yet)? So that, we won't make the same mistakes
if the world decides to sth else
These reasons are well-known and two-fold:
1. It's an investment without any
Pekka Savola
Exactly. As we have been saying for years not,
we must aim for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6,
not replacing IPv4 with IPv6.
IPv6 is currently not worth the price of dual-stack, which is the very
reason it is not being deployed. As of transition mechanisms, they're
not good
Tony,
Tony Hain wrote
Like it or not, we are at the end of the IPV4 road
I think that's where you missed it. We are not. The truth is that the
end of the IPv4 road is in sight; how far away we don't really know, as
looking through the NAT binoculars does not seem to make it closer. How
fast we
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
These protocols require that at least one
side in each transfer is capable of
receiving inbound sessions.
This is not true. Kaaza does not require to open any ports nor configure
anything in the NAT box. The latest versions of SIP using STUN don't
either.
Michel.
Dan Kolis wrote:
Yes indeed. Probably the #1 biggest use for STUN short
term is going to be SIP. It seems like not too much
information has to go thru the known reachable machine.
Maybe just about the same loading as a DNS server?
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Wrong.
No. _you_ are wrong, Dan is
Mark Smith wrote:
Does SIP with STUN use similar techniques to Skype
to get around two NATted VoIP peers ?
I have to confess that I have not read STUN in much detail, but I
understand that one of the novelties is that the STUN server replies
to the originating SIP client what its public
Christian Huitema wrote:
STUN is indeed a great protocol, with all the right
authors, but it makes a couple of assumptions about the
type of NATs and about the structure of the network.
Indeed, but its assumptions are well in line with the predicted
clientele: home/soho.
We were talking
Christian Huitema wrote:
It is just as easy to deploy IPv6 using Teredo now.
Yeah right. Find me a Teredo client (not to mention any IPv6 in the
first place) for
Grandstream:
http://www.grandstream.com/y-product.htm
Or Sipura:
http://www.sipura.com/products/spa2000.htm
The internet is _not_
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Is it a client server app or a P2P app?
What a total ignorance of the P2P world.
It appears that some education is needed for our candid friend here.
First, a little history. THE P2P app, the original Napster, was
shutdown because of its reliance on centralized servers.
Geoff Huston wrote:
I personally do not see any value in using
this address block up in a 1918 role.
Iljitsch van Beijnum
I tend to agree, not having heard the case for
additional private space.
I agree also.
My comfort level would be much higher if by the
time that we need the extra
Tony,
draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Although I don't think it belongs in the draft, could you post some real
examples of addressing plans that would use that much private space (we
are talking about 10/8 plus four other class A). I was wondering if it
would not be easier to make a case requesting
Daniel Senie wrote:
2) Make available several chunks of space for RFC1918
usage, perhaps a few /8's, a whole mess of /12's, and
many /16's. This space does two things: First, it
provides additional private address space, which is
needed. Second, it provides a usage battleground for
class E
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
