Sounds like we need a party to happen, eh? The question is what night, and
where.
S
Based upon the agenda, and lack of a button, it looks like there is
no social event. I don't have a problem with this at all, actually,
I just wanted to verify my belief.
(Does that mean there is no
Sounds like we need a party to happen, eh? The question is what night,
and
where.
S
Apparently there is a party scheduled for the garden terrace wednesday
night. I can provide music for the occasion, if necessary.
Scott
Based upon the agenda, and lack of a button, it looks like
--On 19. november 2002 00:44 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently there is a party scheduled for the garden terrace wednesday
night. I can provide music for the occasion, if necessary.
that room will fit only the 200 or so working group chairs that have been
invited. the
IETF members,
Thank you all for your hospitality and consideration for my particularly
bohemian lifestyle during the 55th ietf, and especially for those of you i had
the opportunity to meet and interact with... Russ,
Hue, TJ, the IETF secretariat staff and everyone else. It was a unique
Rick,
first of all I don't think this belongs in the IETF forum.
why? the DNS is a key piece of internet infrastrucure, as i'm sure you are
well aware. if it is in danger, then all of us are in danger. what group is
better equipped to deal with such problems than the ietf?
scott
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Tomson Eric (Yahoo.fr) wrote:
Just three questions :
1/does the IETF support or contest the Inclusive Name Space (the one
operated by NewRoot instead of the ICANN)?
Dont forget the opennic www.opennic.unrated.net the pacificroot
pacificroot.org or the open root server
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, john smith wrote:
on ethernet,
If all ports were DTE pin configured (same pair everywhere for rx and tx)
and all cables were cross
life would be simpler.
I once built a network using nothing but cross-connects. It was nice.
Scott
-JS
sleekfreak pirate
grid networking
infinitely simpler, as well as changing the basic topology of the network
as a whole. All in all not a bad idea. By the way, who are you? I don't
think I have had the pleasure of making your acquaintence...
Scott
- Original Message -
From: shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED
Cant you just type ftp at a unix shell?
Or use one of the 3D or X11 ftp clients available for the 3D user
interface for linux?
Scott
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, David J. Aronson wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Thanks to Jim Galvin:
ftp://ftp.tislabs.com/pub/lists/poised
I can't access
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 01:16:48 EST, shogunx said:
Cant you just type ftp at a unix shell?
Or use one of the 3D or X11 ftp clients available for the 3D user
interface for linux?
3D? Where? ;)
www.3dwm.org
AND
www.fresco.org
Scott
/Valdis
Harald,
I have a facility that will fit the purposes of the IETF in Daytona. We
have an international airport, and we can probably get a tremendous deal
on the ballrooms if we can guarantee the occupancy of the hotel during a
slow season... november-february. Local vendors can satisfy food needs
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from san francisco
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx
-- Forwarded message --
I suggest, everybody puts up counters from http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ on
their websites.
Stefan
At 00:03 20.03.2003 -0600, you wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, S Woodside wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an
H.323 connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends
and immediately concluded
. i somply
get none. don't ask me why.
scott
john
--On Monday, 26 May, 2003 20:56 -0400 shogunx
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
S Woodside wrote, RE: spam
How about the cost of legitimate emails that get filtered
and never read. Not everyone
Dean,
If you mean it costs you a nickle to press delete, then the cost of
hauling out the trash would be an issue for Junk Mail, and Junk Faxes, and
the cost of listening to a telemarketer would be a factor there, too.
I would be in favor of getting rid of the telemarketers. The call
well, it's hard to commit acts of leadership inside a burning
movie theatre. (pass me another marshmellow, will you?)
Popcorn OK?
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way te world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
not with a bang, but a whimper.
Michel.
sleekfreak pirate
well, i guess i got shorted on my .02 (insert currency here) then.
where can i collect my other .001 of messages posted, and my .002 of data
transfer?
scott
Messages | Bytes | Who
---+-+---+-+
11.4% | 53 | 13.9% | 233614 | [EMAIL
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Daniel,
I agree with the rest of your post, however
Since NAPT uses stateful inspection to operate,
when referring to NAPT, we are talking about rinetd, right? you can run
that on a linux box with two network interfaces (ethernet, ppp, token
ring,
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Rohit Gupta wrote:
Rohit,
I arrived with two backpacks, a laptop, and a sleeping bag and camped in
the hotel during my first IETF.
Enjoy!
Scott
Hi,
We will be attending the 57th IETF meeting to be held in Vienna and this will be
ours first IETF Meeting. Is there any
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Simon Spero wrote:
--On Saturday, July 05, 2003 8:41 AM -0400 Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Most people wear shoes.
No shirt, no shoes, denial of service.
unless you feel more comfortable without shoes, in which case, please wash
your feet.
Simon
p.s.
If
here! posted in response to repeated requests to port my software
applications to proprietary operating systems.
I look forward to seeing everyone in Minneapolis.
Scott
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tomson Eric (Yahoo.fr) wrote:
Hey, ShogunX, is that part of your anatomy on
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81
i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org
scott
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Matthias Krawutschke wrote:
Clint,
this is wrong. If i do that I've got the correct page from IETF.
Please clear your Cache or proxy.
Matthias
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Clint Chaplin [mailto:[EMAIL
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
shogunx wrote:
i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org
Which is quite logical as that host doesn't have any 's.
exactly.
If you want to reach the IETF site using only IPv6,
you could use http://www.ietf.org.sixxs.org
(see http
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
i get an unknown host with ping6 www.ietf.org
try ping
well right all that works Randy. i can ping6 6bone.net all day long too,
via 6in4 encapsulation. 62 hops away. not a problem. so this server has
a route to the 6-bone. and i'm in the third
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
unless there is a reason why that host should not be using v6
services, hmm?
because it works now?
not unless we are waiting for a zone refresh.
; DiG 9.2.2 @partybus ietf.org
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
this assertion is false, or disingenuous at best.
backbone service providers are turning it on at great
pain, much of that pain due to lack of support from
large router vendors.
A few are working on lab efforts, and a very small
Can't we just hack the mailman configs to dump mails with X-sender value
of outlook or outlook express? That would solve the problem, no;)
Scott
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:30:44 CDT, David Frascone [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
'course, I probably get
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Christian Huitema wrote:
Can't we just hack the mailman configs to dump mails with X-sender
value
of outlook or outlook express? That would solve the problem, no;)
Well, the only problem with that idea is that we explicitly do *NOT*
have a Your clue must be -THIS-
The better question for the IETF is whether we should do something to
SMTP to make it less easy to send spoofed mail.
what, so one couldn't telnet in and send arbitrary mail? include a
reversedns lookup in SMTP? good luck on widespread implementation.
-- Christian Huitema
sleekfreak
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
How beautiful to be immune behind an open-source kernel;) The rest of the
world worries. I eat a sandwich.
Scott
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, David Frascone wrote:
With the current virii usually forging the from field with random
addresses from its
, shogunx wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
How beautiful to be immune behind an open-source kernel;) The rest of the
world worries. I eat a sandwich.
Scott
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
I am reading email from some good thinkers, obviously good people, not quite
open source gnomes, but close. What's in it for me, or the world? Obviously
IETF picks some pretty nice places to meet. And it is a pretty impressive
org to work with to pretend to care about making a difference.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
I run a few mail servers, and have built many more. I personally would
have no desire for my mail to be handled by POP3, passed in cleartext
across the public internet, when I simply log into
my machine securely (locally or remotely) and type mail to
The second is raising the cost to the spammer. Personally, I like the idea of
taking up a collection among the ISPs and other providers, and hiring some good
ethnic muscle (there's competition in the field, a number of experienced and
ruthless groups are available). I'm sure the spam
I'll be back here in this list later (probably a year from now) when your needs have
changed to a more dire state regarding email.
Thank you for playing.
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
so far, nobody has figured out how to impose their will on
the rest of the net.
thankfully
Keith
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
Evening all,
have we completely deprecated 's for A6's or is still considered
bcp?
Scott
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
If you can convince the RIRs that it's feasible to relax the
allocation criteria for IPv4 blocks,
Keith
Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing?
The basic rule is now - if you (the requester) can show you are going to
use the space
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
you might take a look at the RIR web pages - it does not cost
an ISP $2500 to get additional address space allocated - the
additional fee for additional space for large ISPs is generally zero.
Vladis,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:48:23 EDT, shogunx said:
If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.
If the $2,500 is a stumbling block, you're probably WAY undercapitalized for
the project in the first place
A situation I'm used to.
Why do you need your own allocation
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
The IESG is considering creation of a formalized education team to manage
the IETF education efforts, which have so far been managed informally.
This is a new type of entity in the IETF, and community feedback is
therefore sought both on the specific
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
and just what was it that the ietf needed education about?
At each IETF for as long as I've been going, we do a newcomer's
orientation on Sunday afternoon.
Right. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
I'm not sure when we started doing it,
Anyone running hostap there;)
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Is a very bad behavior from some people that it seems don't know how to use their
own computer.
I will say that this people should pay 5 times the normal fee in the next IETF
meeting, because the big number of
You can probably find that info at http://personaltelco.net although I'm
not sure you will be able to take advantage of the Prism2 chipset AP fuctions
avialable using 80211b.
Scott
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Simon Leinen wrote:
Randy Bush writes:
Note that getting 802.11a works even better.
Unfortunately, the driver for my Lucent card doesn't support this
command and I presume that it's not possible w/ the current firmware. As
someone already stated: though the card was quite good and stable at
past meetings, this time it was really annoying. Either the firmware
needs an update
Roland,
Though I'm able to do this (which may not be true for other linux users),
and, it really costs a lot of time to do it. I've done it several times at past
meetings, because the driver wasn't stable enough and crashed my kernel
several times.
Which driver/kernel version are you
In fact, the client can't tell the difference between IBSS and BSS.
Nor can Linux systems become IBSS systems without something like hostap
(hostap is one way, wireless bridging might be another way I think.)
one could have multiple wireless cards in one machine acting as
access points
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some
Michel,
The organization has 800 hosts, all behind NAT (they have PA space, NAT
is there for renumbering ease), and there is only a small fraction of
servers that have one-to-one NAT and therefore require a public IP per
host. In your average 800 hosts network (if such a thing exists) it
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted.
Scott
v
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:37:18 EST, shogunx said:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address
ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX
records. I can't get matching PTR records.
I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:14:43PM -0500, shogunx wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mark Smith wrote:
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP
address ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS
perhaps the solution is to not use insecure microsoft software. or
banking systems.
On 21 Dec 2003, Franck Martin wrote:
-Forwarded Message-
From: Parry Aftab [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [isdf] need help from the ietf list...can someone post this for
me? or
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
People need to rely on their common sense. This isn't a technical
problem. It is a social engineering problem. Your best bet is to read
Kevin Mitnick's book The Art of Deception. Of course, there will be
instances were banks will send their customers
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only solution is to stop distributing this type of information via email.
Microsoft had a similar issue this autumn with a group sending emails as Microsoft
Security Bulletin and Microsoft sent the following note to all MCPs:
Yeah, I got
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
Interesting reading: some have been asking what the cost of moving from a
peer-to-peer to a service/consumer model are, in terms of applications
deployed and the ability to build more robust business models. Many ISPs
are thinking in terms of VoIP as a
So we are still faced with the question of how to deploy multicast to the
end user. Sad. I have two circuits running into my home office, and both
providers (one a major telco) are so cranially-rectally inverted that they
have no clue what multicast is much less how to deploy it.
What does it
Yes, but what about those of us who just show up, instead of registering?
We are able to maintain a modicum of privacy;)
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Thomas J. Hruska wrote:
At 05:51 PM 5/21/2004 -0700, Michel Py writeth:
Tim Chown wrote:
The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in
Ive been watching this thread for some time, and its time for me to pipe
in...
I've been working on a viable hotel solution for some time now, and the
best I have been able to come up with is a terminal server with thin
clients (bootp, tftp, xdmcp... you know the drill) in the guest rooms.
The
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-jun-04, at 3:54, Ed Gerck wrote:
Of course, I still believe that insisting in only using the email
for communications and screaming bloody murder when it does not
work for some reason, at some time, is very un-Internet. If you want
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Ed Gerck wrote:
shogunx wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-jun-04, at 3:54, Ed Gerck wrote:
Of course, I still believe that insisting in only using the email
for communications and screaming bloody murder when it does not
work
, perhaps we could ask them a few things;
what do you want?, do you have a question?, and does your mother know
what you are doing? come to mind.
scott
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Ed Gerck wrote:
to save trees, please read my past messages here, the answers are there.
Thanks.
shogunx wrote:
On Sat
I would agree. Perhaps an inquiry as to the motives behind this continual
attack that the IETF has endured would help mitigate the situation.
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Jasen Strutt wrote:
Dean Anderson
Would you give it a rest already? Take your issue(s) up with the appropriate
person(s) in a
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 21-jul-04, at 21:35, Michael Richardson wrote:
JORDI What is clear is that the US government should consider this
JORDI type of events and provide facilities. Otherwise, the IETF,
JORDI IEEE and other organizations, should
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:41:53 EDT, shogunx said:
How about a city in the US which agrees to not engage in such
behavior, and has an international airport, and several private airports?
The cities aren't given a choice in the matter - some bright
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:22:54 EDT, shogunx said:
And if we bring suit against this obvious invasion of privacy,
It's been tried.
http://freetotravel.org/
What if we throw in a large protest and some civil disobedience
simultaneously
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, George Michaelson wrote:
Personally, I find the requirement of wearing clothes tiresome, but then
again, who REALLY wants to see all the IETF'ers naked?
Enjoy,
Scott
Jon Crowcroft told us in UCL-CS back in '85 that the pre-IETF meetings were
smoke filled rooms,
We have very nice facilities in Daytona.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 12:37 PM 8/10/2004, Glen Zorn wrote:
,,,
Frankly, as long as we can have BAR BOFs in the Hotel, the location
of the food doesn't matter.
Vienna suffered from having meeting space and hotel
suggestions for future ietf meetings
Author: shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 09th August 2004 5:21:34 PM
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, George Michaelson wrote:
Personally, I find the requirement of wearing clothes tiresome, but then
again, who REALLY wants to see all the IETF'ers naked
How about one in Daytona Beach?
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
We kind of went away from the first half of Harald/Scott's notes,
which was
From: scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harald asks
I feel some urgency to make sure that we have meeting arrangements
in place
I'll anta up again... Daytona Beach not only has a wide variety of
entertainment for ietf'ers (over 200 pubs at last count), but also an
international airport, and first class convention facilities.
Scott
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 08:16 AM,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
Below is a (slightly augmented) version of my poll response.
I note that I have not attempted to review the proposals in
detail (I rather stay out of these weeds), but believe I
understand the general gist of the scenarios.
I view Scenario C as
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
This strikes me as oversimplistic. What if a commercial enterprise
wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on
open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors? I'm
not sure you can get around a
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian You guys don't have a problem with the defensive
Brian suspension/no first use clauses, do you?
There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
I believe the Open
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
How can we not adopt some manner of open source attitude, Paul? That
has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time. Otherwise, we
would be paying for every DNS lookup.
as with this rediculous sender-id issue, which is a blatant attempt by
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
... notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered a standard
if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
because of patent/licence issues.
i can't understand why this matters.
this matters as concerns the defacto sphere
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
eric is saying that the previous situation
whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
various others have said but what if the IPR terms try to
When the open-source tide really turns, and the best quality source code
and technology is free, then it will be subject to theft of the sort where
it is made improperly not-free. Then it will be the open-source community
that is trying to enforce the copyright and possibly even patent law.
patent raid on a development standard, and invited future raids by
Microsoft and others.
Given that the WG was shutdown with no ratified standard, this also seems
like a serious misrepresentation.
In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
it either can
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control
of the results through the patent system. The IETF has dignaled
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:36:08PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Even if we ignore the address space issues entirely, we will
slide smoothly from NATs in IPv4 to NATs in IPv6 or, more
likely, ever more clever NATs and NAT technologies in
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The difference has been significant on my end. The advantage of end-to-end
connectivity to/from hosts previously only behind a NAT is remarkable. So
is ALL THE ADDRESS SPACE that I now have available, without extra charges
from the local
Franck,
You cannot get allocations for the SOPAC countries?
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Franck Martin wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries
are below
Eric,
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit that if your environment is at all like mine, you don't actually
configure 192.168.whatever addresses on the equipment in your house. You
run DHCP within the home and it assigns such. That being the
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Peter Ford wrote:
Hi Tony,
Your enclosed feature comparison list is a fine list. However, the sooner
the residential gateway feature set is expanded to cover support of
tunneling IPv6 running on top IPv4 as a bearer, the faster you will see IPv6
deployed. Why
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:44:30PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 12:17 +, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Depends on the type of home user ;)
Nevertheless, most homes
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some
LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 04:46 08/12/2004, shogunx wrote:
both count. if they do not understand it to the level of acceptance at
least, then how its built does not matter. if its not built correctly,
large percentages of migrators will drop anchor and turn around
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Carl Malamud wrote:
Hi -
If anybody has problem reading .doc files, here is a version in pdf:
what happened to ascii?
http://public.resource.org/adminrest/IETF-IASA-BCP-v6.pdf
Regards,
Carl
Per Harald's request, ISOC's legal counsel reviewed the latest
version
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Russ Housley floated the idea that the BCP might contain more guidance to
the ISOC BoT on how to select an IAOC member.
I read the consensus of the list to be that it's more appropriate for the
ISOC BoT to figure out this on its own, and
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
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
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:35:21AM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
The reasons are the same why they are currently using NAT with IPv4 even
though they have enough public IPv4 address space. We have discussed
these for ages; if my memory is correct, you are
Allocating anything longer than /32 is asking for a massive swamp.
It's bad enough that ARIN is issuing /48 microallocations as many
operators are only filtering routes longer than /48 right now.
Alternate path routing allows you to set the bar a bit higher for
getting PI space and allows
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Keith Moore wrote:
however, when that functionality requires having knowledge that is only
possessed by the network (which is what hosts need to do address
selection), moving that functionality all the way to hosts is probably
the Wrong Thing. especially when you realize
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Greg Skinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:23:31AM -0700, Bob Braden wrote:
I just came across a 1993 mailing list for the ietf. Anyone care,
before I delete it?
Is ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf considered to be the
definitive archive for the IETF
How about Daytona Beach?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Sam Hartman wrote:
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeffrey On Thursday, July 14, 2005 08:50:16 PM -0700
Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone want to bet on Minneapolis - Its March after all.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Does this mean that you think the IETF should disband the ASRG, drop all
current I-D's relating to spam, and quit working on spam issues?
Yes. The last time I checked, the IETF was about manifesting genius level
ideas into functional
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Hi,
Yesterday in the plenary in response to a request for making the IETF
servers IPv6-capable, I believe Leslie said we shouldn't use IETF
servers for testing.
What testing? Production addresses have been routing for some time now.
In and
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
