[120620] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Dec 29 11:25:32 2009
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:00:57 CST."
<200912291600.nBTG0vt8015215@aurora.sol.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:24:16 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1262103856_4680P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:00:57 CST, Joe Greco said:
> Do we really want to spread that sort of model to the rest of the
> Internet? All it really encourages is for more and more things to
> be ported to HTTP, including, amusingly, management of devices...
I can remember at one time, some of the same players who argued against
IPv6 adoption because the long addresses would increase network overhead
were the same ones championing the insane firewalling that started the
"everything over HTTP" insanity. Guess which adds more bits to the total
packet? :)
--==_Exmh_1262103856_4680P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFLOi0wcC3lWbTT17ARAl19AJwMu7mZe8aW3hLOjgFEyBhsdpUOawCg5Ny/
0Xv3jESe5sbTA6dz3R5vpTI=
=fD8V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1262103856_4680P--
