[162083] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1149
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Kell)
Mon Apr 1 22:19:42 2013
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:19:22 -0400
From: Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu>
To: Eric Adler <eaptech@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMdF1xWmsH6TXL9HesVV4CZD3Yte5tXdDkHOJWQsbCr7vwsWVg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 4/1/2013 10:15 PM, Eric Adler wrote:
> Make sure you don't miss the QoS implementation of RFC 2549 (and make sure
> that you're ready to implement RFC 6214). You'll be highly satisfied with
> the results (presuming you and your packets end up in one of the higher
> quality classes).
> I'd also suggest a RFC 2322 compliant DHCP server for devices inside the
> hurricane zone, but modified by implementing zip ties such that the C47s
> aren't released under heavy (wind or water) loads.
Actually, given recent events, I'd emphasize and advocate RFC3514
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt) which I think is LONG overdue for
adoption. The implementation would forego most of the currently debated
topics as related to network abuse or misuse :)
Jeff
