ryoder 1,003 #1 April 1, 2011 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6214"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #2 April 2, 2011 What's this IPv6 you speak of? And what happened to v5?it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,003 #5 April 2, 2011 Quote Geek This was a geek test for all those here who claim to be geeks. And the dearth of response confirmed my suspicions.And here is another one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5984 Love an RFC that cites HHGG."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #6 April 2, 2011 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2325.txt My job includes satellites, monkeys, and Bunn monitoring, Life really couldn't get better.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #7 April 2, 2011 Quotehttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2325.txt My job includes satellites, monkeys, and Bunn monitoring, Life really couldn't get better. Are they really nice Bunn's you are monitoring??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
huge 0 #8 April 3, 2011 I can't believe that this one hasn't been mentioned yet http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,003 #9 April 3, 2011 Why do people keep digging up old RFCs? We implemented those long ago. It is the new ones released this year that are news. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
huge 0 #10 April 3, 2011 Quote Why do people keep digging up old RFCs? We implemented those long ago. It is the new ones released this year that are news. I'm just trying to make sure that all the new ones are compliant with RFC 1925, especially section 2, paragraph 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,003 #11 April 3, 2011 Quote Quote Why do people keep digging up old RFCs? We implemented those long ago. It is the new ones released this year that are news. I'm just trying to make sure that all the new ones are compliant with RFC 1925, especially section 2, paragraph 1 I actually had to use that once in an argument with an app developer. He was ranting about our network's latency to an oversea site. So I asked him what latency would be acceptable. He pulled an arbitrary number out of his ass. So I showed him some simple arithmetic on a whiteboard, using the speed of light, the refractive index of glass fiber, and the distance to that site, to show him why his latency number was impossible to attain, even with a single, uninterrupted fiber. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,003 #12 April 4, 2011 Seen on the NANOG email list in discussion of RFC 6214: QuoteMr. ENGINEER: (yelling and hitting the send button repeatedly) 'ELLO NOC!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock customer call! (Takes RFC 791 out of the binder and thumps it on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.) Mr. ENGINEER: Now that's what I call a dead protocol. NETWORK OPERATOR FROM HELL: No, no.....No, 'e's truncated! Mr. ENGINEER: TRUNCATED!? NOFH: Yeah! You truncated him, just as he was bein' refactored! Datagrams truncate easily, major. Mr. ENGINEER: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That packet is definitely deceased, and when I deployed it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of throughput was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged reroute. NOFH: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the big iron. Mr. ENGINEER: PININ' for the BIG IRON?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im through the router? NOFH: The 4-byte prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable protocol, id'nit, squire? Lovely octets! Mr. ENGINEER: Look, I took the liberty of examining that packet when I dispatched it, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting in its queue in the first place was that it had been SWAPPED there. (pause) NOFH: Well, o'course it was swapped there! If I hadn't swapped that packet, it would have nuzzled up to that DMZ, bent it apart with its handshake, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee! Mr. ENGINEER: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this packet wouldn't "voom" if you put four million hop counts on it! 'E's bleedin' demised! NOFH: No no! 'E's pining! Mr. ENGINEER: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This packet is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is archive! 'E's a null set! Bereft of destination, 'e rests in /dev/null! If you hadn't swapped 'im to the top of the queue 'e'd be pushing off the stack! 'Is traceroutes are now 'istory! 'E's off the wire! 'E's kicked the bit bucket, 'e's shuffled off the interwebs, run 'init 0' and joined the bleedin' choir deprecated!! THIS IS AN EX-PACKET!! "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #13 April 4, 2011 You saw that on NANOG and "TTL Exprired" was overlooked.? Wow.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #14 April 4, 2011 Quote Are they really nice Bunn's you are monitoring??? Monitoring? Always.... Action? Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eeneR 1 #15 April 4, 2011 Oh yea, it is causing havoc at work....WHOOOOOOOShe is not a "Dumb Blonde" - She is a "Light-Haired Detour Off The Information Superhighway." eeneR TF#72, FB#4130, Incauto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
