Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny
that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the contrary.
Greetings,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny
that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the contrary.
Yes, but I
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny
that doesn't mean
In a message written on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 03:39:03PM -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
You need to specify tail drop behavior.
It may be a Eurasian Hobby to make such silly statements, but to
me it just seems like an Imperial Shag, and a waste of everyone's
time.
A Brown Kiwi once told me that the
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is
funny
Original Message -
From: Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
Which? African or European Swallows?
(Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-)
So the RFC needed more text in it's Security Considerations section,
too...
People just don't put enough *thought* into their April 1
On 4/1/2011 5:41 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a v6
carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
Depending on whether or not the packet
Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a
recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner?
I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. ;)
Scott
On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
- Reply message -
From: Scott Morris s...@emanon.com
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am
Subject: v6 Avian Carriers?
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a
recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner?
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:30:45 CDT, =?utf-8?B?R1AgV29vZGVu?= said:
wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
RFC1149 says:
Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low
altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single
point-to-point path for
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been
installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the
avian carrier.
--
Brandon Ross
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for fractional
DHCP where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say
155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the
carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for fractional
DHCP where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say
155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the
carrier NAT would have other shares of the same
I'm thinking both TCP and UDP, and for ICMP don't NAT's use the sequence
number field to keep them separate ?
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Justin M. Streiner
strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for
On 1 Apr 2011, at 17:47, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for fractional
DHCP where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say
155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the
carrier NAT would have other shares of
On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a
v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
I was disappointed in this
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Steven Bellovin wrote:
I was disappointed in this RFC -- Section 3.1 didn't include the proper
discussion of the difference between African and European avian
carriers, and we know what happens if that question is asked at the
wrong time.
That discussion would be out of
I believe that the Sullenberger unit effected the loss of the avian carriers
requiring regeneration and retransmission.
Dave Edelman
On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:19, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I'm thinking both TCP and UDP, and for ICMP don't NAT's use the sequence
number field to keep them separate ?
SNIP/
In my experience, the Avian Carriers usually eat the NATs.
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
Be careful what you wish for:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel d...@hetzel.org wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for fractional
DHCP where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say
It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss.
Owen
On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
- Reply message -
From: Scott Morris s...@emanon.com
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am
Subject: v6 Avian Carriers?
I thought iced-over fiber was a little bit like muffler-bearings. Great
excuse if they buy it.
Mike
On 4/1/11 6:07 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
It's also especially sensitive to icing induced packet loss.
Owen
On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:30 AM, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier
On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been
installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a
v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or
tunneling?
Swallows have MTU issues.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41 11AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So
if a
Which? African or European Swallows?
(Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-)
Owen
On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Chad Dailey wrote:
Swallows have MTU issues.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not true.
The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not.
Hm, in my recollection the payload made it to the destination. Perhaps
the route was a bit unexpected though.
--
Brandon Ross AIM:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Which? African or European Swallows?
(Watches Chad fly over the cliff edge) ;-)
So the RFC needed more text in it's Security Considerations section, too...
Owen
On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Chad Dailey wrote:
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 20:34:52 -0500
Subject: Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
From: Chad Dailey na...@thedaileyplanet.com
Swallows have MTU issues.
No swallows? Oh, spit.
Isn't that what the uvula is for?
Oh... never mind wrong swallow. ;)
On 4/2/11 3:34 AM, Chad Dailey wrote:
Swallows have MTU issues.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 8:41
Random re-encapsulation. Now there's an interesting protocol!
On 4/2/11 3:53 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not true.
The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not.
Hm, in my recollection the payload made it to the
31 matches
Mail list logo
