Isn't he barred from posting here?
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson.
Thanks
--Dean
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why cant the IETF and
Tim Chown wrote:
Isn't he barred from posting here?
If by he you mean Dean Anderson, yes.
As I observed, the delete key is handy.
Brian
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson.
Really - so where is the magic list of all barred members?
Todd
- Original Message -
From: Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
ratherthan some
Isn't he barred from
On Thursday, September 14, 2006 01:37:11 PM +0100 Tim Chown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't he barred from posting here?
Perhaps, but one of the checks against abuse of the ability to bar posters
is that they can still get a point across if they can convince someone else
to forward their
Joe Touch wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:23 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'iab@iab.org'; 'iesg@ietf.org'
Cc: 'ietf@ietf.org'
Subject: Why?
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT
Tony Hain wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:23 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'iab@iab.org'; 'iesg@ietf.org'
Cc: 'ietf@ietf.org'
Subject: Why?
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
crap???
...
Another concern I have is that, in an IPv6-only world, even if you
eliminate NAT, there will still be firewalls, and those firewalls will
frequently have the property that they block traffic coming from the
outside to a particular IP/port on the inside unless an outbound packet
has been
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 09:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this is why we chartered MIDCOM in the first place.
Yes, and midcom as currently specified does support firewall attributes.
To get back to the broader questions, when we set out to do midcom and
to address the general
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'A tremendous amount of work' is the fundamental point of my
complaint. We are wasting valuable resources patching a hack.
'A tremendous amount of work' is the fundamental point of my complaint
too. We are wasting valuable resources trying to
inline
Tom Petch
From: Kevin Loch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Why?
As you know, the value of a network is roughly proportional to
the square of the participants.
The value of a network can depend on what
inline.
Tony Hain wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
This discussion seems to take as a premise the view that if we define
applications only on IPv6, even though they could be defined on IPv4, that
this will give people a reason to use IPv6.
It also seems to take as a premise that if we don't define
On 10:46 14/03/2005, Tom Petch said:
As you know, the value of a network is roughly proportional to
the square of the participants.
The value of a network can depend on what is on it, not how many or who. One
useful (http/ftp/...) server can make a network worth accessing, worth paying
for.
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
...
I agree that ALGs are not the answer, and I believe the reasons for that
are treated in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-nat-traversal-
considerations-00.txt
I have a fundamental problem with an IAB document that implies NAT provides
a firewall.
Hi Tony,
I have not been followign this thread at all. But, I did happen to look at this
e-mail and decided to respond. Please see my comments below. Thanks.
regards,
suresh
--- Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
...
I agree that ALGs are not the answer, and I
Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
[suresh] Why is it a problem with what Jonathan said in the IAB document?
It is
true that traditinal NATs do inherently provide a limited firewall
functionality. Jonathan did not say that NAT function implies full
Firewall
functionality.
Also, what exactly do you
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:09:18PM +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
The solution is to find new externets to reboost the network.
The Internet started as an overlay network over the telephony networks.
It has been tremendously successful for various reasons and it is now
even seeking to
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
This discussion seems to take as a premise the view that if we define
applications only on IPv6, even though they could be defined on IPv4, that
this will give people a reason to use IPv6.
It also seems to take as a premise that if we don't define ways to work
around NATs, people won't use the
From: Joel M. Halpern joel@stevecrocker.com
The fact is that external evidence indicates that both premises are
false. For a long time we tried ignoring NATs.
...
As far as I can tell, following through on the kind of approach
discussed here would simply make our
I have a totally different evaluation of the IPv6 issue I suggest you to
consider.
IPv6 was specified as IPv4 with larger addresses, this is what has been
delivered and this is what is deployed by the RIRs and demanded by the
market. One uses IPv6 as an extended IPv4 space. Any pressure for
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:04:52AM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have already seen
several major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
with IPv6, even though they can get enough public address space.
Do you have
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Not needing NAT is a minor value add for IPv6. But we have
already seen several major corporations publicly indicate
that they intend to use NAT with IPv6, even though they can
get enough public address space.
Tim Chown wrote:
I assume the reason is lack of PI
Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons several major
corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT with IPv6 be
willing to compare those reasons with the reasons listed in
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01, and identify any reasons that might be
missing from Gunter's
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 the one that convinced
me some years ago
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
Ralph Droms wrote:
Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons several
major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
with IPv6 be willing to compare those reasons with the reasons
listed in draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01, and identify any reasons
that might be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ento.ca.us, Michel Py writes:
Ralph Droms wrote:
Would someone with first-hand knowledge of the reasons several
major corporations publicly indicate that they intend to use NAT
with IPv6 be willing to compare those reasons with the reasons
listed in
Noel Chiappa wrote:
I mean, it's now coming up on *11 years* since IPv6 was selected (i.e.
back when the latest and greatest uSoft-ware was *Windows 3.1*, and the
WWW had a grand total of about 3K sites), and still we hear the oh, it
will take off soon - the same line we've been hearing for close
At 22:09 11/03/2005, Kevin Loch wrote:
If you really want to jump start n^2, find a way to convince the RIR's to
require demonstration of IPv6 deployment for subsequent (non initial) IPv4
allocations.
I fear that we overlook a point you make here: RIRs require
demonstration. I suppose that if
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
This discussion seems to take as a premise the view that if we define
applications only on IPv6, even though they could be defined on IPv4, that
this will give people a reason to use IPv6.
It also seems to take as a premise that if we don't define ways to work
around
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
