I am unsure what to say.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:14:34 +0200
From: Lubomir Kundrak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: funsec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment
This is kind of... interesting.
[snip]
We're taking 10 gigabytes of the
Gadi Evron wrote:
I am unsure what to say.
The idea is quite old and I'm happy to see that what started and
continued as a joke is actually being tried out to see if it would
really work. Hope they get it up and running soon.
Pete
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 04
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of
congestion than the efficiency part of congestion.
TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
per-flow?
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of
congestion than the efficiency part of congestion.
TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
per-flow?
How would you define user in that context?
Stephen
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of
congestion than the efficiency part of congestion.
TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird.
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of
congestion than the efficiency part of congestion.
TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
per-flow?
How would you define user in that context?
Operators
http://gallery.colofinder.net/shameful-cabling had a great collection of
What not to do photos, but it has apparently evaporated in the mists of
time. Anybody know if it's at a new location, or is the Wayback Machine
my only hope?
(ISTR it also had an adjacent cabling done right gallery - does
And given that it is travelling between users who may or may not have trust
established between them and intermediate systems which may or may not have
trust established with each other or the endpoints, we got ourselves a bit of a
pickle here. And trust is far bigger than trust in a security
Lmao. Thanks, Sean, I just snorted my cup of freshly brewed coffee. Ouch. :-)
--Original Message--
From: Sean Donelan
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Stuart
Cc: nanog
Sent: Sep 4, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos
On
On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
More seriously -- the question is whether new services will cause
operator congestion problems that today's mechanisms don't handle.
and, it includes the questions of what operators will be willing to
deploy. One of the questions on the
Crap. Now people are going to start asking if the ipv6 platform does
ipv6 forwarding in hardware or software. :|
DJ
Petri Helenius wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
I am unsure what to say.
The idea is quite old and I'm happy to see that what started and
continued as a joke is actually being
11 matches
Mail list logo
