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/ Marc
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?
Depending on whether or not the packet arrived at its destination determines if it is loss or tunneling. In the event it is tunneled, please be certain to filter the packet as de-encapsulation is a bit... messy.
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 know. So if a v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
Marc
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?
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.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
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 scope for the document's purpose as I believe African and European carriers are currently IP version agnostic. However, rapid genetic changes arising from the increased environmental radiation in the northern hemisphere vs that in the southern hemisphere due to the global circulation of the Japanese radioactive plume may require we revisit this issue in a few years. Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com
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?
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.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I think in general, swallows provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams. Owen
Swallows have MTU issues. On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@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 v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
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.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I think in general, swallows provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
Owen
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 <owen@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 v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
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.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I think in general, swallows provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
Owen
On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@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:
Swallows have MTU issues.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@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 v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling?
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.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I think in general, swallows provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
Owen
---- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Bellovin" <smb@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 RFCs anymore... Cheers, -- jra
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 <owen@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 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 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.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
That applies to swallows. I'm not sure pidgeons pose the same issue. I think in general, swallows provide poor platforms for avian transport of IP datagrams.
Owen
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
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/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
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 bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us a new brown M&M to put into the contracts...
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
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 bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us a new brown M&M to put into the contracts...
You need to specify "tail drop" behavior.
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 Cardinal rule of mailing lists was to wait your Tern, and not cause any ruffled feathers. However, many folks seem to be Superb Parrots, repeating the same discussion over and over. Others are too Chicken to join in. Eventually this can become the Swan song for a mailing list. Once the Common Nighthawks take over, it's done. A Swift decline will occur, for sure, which is often hard to Swallow. But, I posted this on a Lark. Not to Crow about it, but I think I did quite a bit better than a Common Babbler, and Warbled my way to a fun to read post, a hoot if you will. Hopefully folks don't think this was a Fowl. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
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 bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us a new brown M&M to put into the contracts...
I wonder what NYC paramedic David Roth would think, to find out that he'd coined a bit of technical jargon, quite by accident. Cheers, -- jra
participants (13)
-
Antonio Querubin -
Chad Dailey -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeff Walter -
Jeroen van Aart -
Leo Bicknell -
Owen DeLong -
Robert Bonomi -
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) -
Scott Brim -
Scott Morris -
Steven Bellovin -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu