[162114] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1149
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 2 20:46:22 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <A4ED4AF5-98B5-4837-9806-0AFC0DDB6B18@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:41:12 -0700
To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Things get upgraded over time.
Owen
On Apr 2, 2013, at 15:44 , Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> DLT? I first heard it as a station wagon full of (9-track, 1600 bpi,
> that having been the state of the art) mag tapes on the Taconic =
Parkway,
> circa 1970. I suspect, though, that Herman Hollerith expressed the =
idea=20
> about a stage coach full of punchcards, back in the 1880s.
>=20
>=20
> On Apr 2, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>> "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 full of DLT cartridges."
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 11:31 , "Scott Berkman" <scott@sberkman.net> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hey careful, Pigeons have won this fight before:
>>>=20
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8248056.stm
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com]=20
>>> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:37 PM
>>> To: Jeff Kell
>>> Cc: NANOG
>>> Subject: Re: RFC 1149
>>>=20
>>> Packets, shmackets. I'm just upset that my BGP over Semaphore =
Towers
>>> routing protocol extension hasn't been experimentally validated yet.
>>>=20
>>> 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...
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On 4/1/2013 10:15 PM, Eric Adler wrote:
>>>>> Make sure you don't miss the QoS implementation of RFC 2549 (and=20=
>>>>> make
>>>> sure
>>>>> that you're ready to implement RFC 6214). You'll be highly=20
>>>>> satisfied
>>>> with
>>>>> the results (presuming you and your packets end up in one of the=20=
>>>>> higher quality classes).
>>>>> I'd also suggest a RFC 2322 compliant DHCP server for devices =
inside=20
>>>>> the hurricane zone, but modified by implementing zip ties such =
that=20
>>>>> the C47s aren't released under heavy (wind or water) loads.
>>>>=20
>>>> Actually, given recent events, I'd emphasize and advocate RFC3514
>>>> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt) which I think is LONG overdue=20=
>>>> for adoption. The implementation would forego most of the =
currently=20
>>>> debated topics as related to network abuse or misuse :)
>>>>=20
>>>> Jeff
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> -george william herbert
>>> george.herbert@gmail.com
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
