[162084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1149
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Mon Apr 1 22:37:25 2013
In-Reply-To: <515A402A.1040001@utc.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:37:12 -0700
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Packets, shmackets. I'm just upset that my BGP over Semaphore Towers
routing protocol extension hasn't been experimentally validated yet.
Whoever you are who keeps flying pigeons between my test towers, you can't
deliver packets without proper routing updates! Knock it off long enough
for me to converge the #@$#$@ routing table...
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
