Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com> Sat, 03 July 2010 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ole@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1CA3A68A5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.449, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JLEqnvGaXucu for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D768A3A684A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAIqL0yrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACfZXGkAIF6CwGXUoUlBIN4hEI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,531,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="221312460"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2010 19:19:42 +0000
Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.177.199]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o63JJgMY007644; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 19:19:42 GMT
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:17:30 -0700
From: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
To: Marocco Enrico <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
Subject: Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks
In-Reply-To: <5F56951F-FEB5-4A33-9B29-75313DDB58D4@telecomitalia.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1007031214070.1803@pita.cisco.com>
References: <CFB08C07-DE90-47BE-ADFF-FC72162BBFA1@daedelus.com> <4C2BBD51.2060605@ietf.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20100701070804.0c26b8a0@resistor.net> <6D6E25E2-057B-4591-9288-1283036D0374@cisco.com> <20100701154421.GB43159@shinkuro.com> <4C2CE406.7090600@vigilsec.com> <20100701231916.768AA3A67EC@core3.amsl.com> <AANLkTik6AuU5ZtrW5wGRNDlSrAP2EjURCKC3J_e_mJ93@mail.gmail.com> <5F56951F-FEB5-4A33-9B29-75313DDB58D4@telecomitalia.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:19:30 -0000

Enrico,

Nobody has suggested there was anything wrong with the old (NUL)
access method nor that any damage has ever been caused, but that
is entirely orthogonal to the matter at hand. We are (in November)
going to a location where such access is "required" (at least it
seems a good idea from host's point of view), so we are testing
it in another location, Maastricht, first to iron out bugs etc.

Ole


On Sat, 3 Jul 2010, Marocco Enrico wrote:
> +1
> 
> Also, if we really need to switch to a new access method, I would
> deeply appreciate if someone explained what was wrong with the old
> one, i.e. what damage was ever caused by an open IETF network. If any.
> 
> --
> Ciao,
> Enrico
> 
>