I think this is ludicrous - this so-called problem has been debated by
the IETF group and no workable soultion has been found. It has been
suggested many times that a new WG be formed to develop an open solution
to this and other resource management problems. I've volunteered to
participate if someone goes about creating it.
If all of the people whining about this did something about it instead,
we'd probably have a solution by now. I'm tired of people whining about
it and telling us we need to fix it. The IETF is open, they've extended
an invitation to anyone who wants to work on this, it is NOT s simple
problem with a slapdash fix. If it were, we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
I was also put off by the posters tone of wanting everything handed to
him, and not wanting to do any work to fix the problem. We bend over
backwards to help people - just running these lists and participating
is far more than most vendors do - and I don't take to that tone well.
>reasonable solution is not that hard and can be made reasonably reliable
>by being conservative. "Reasonable" is the key here, your myriad
I suggest implementing it then. And make sure it scales to all needs at
all sites, as ay solution we produce will need to do. We cannot and WILL
not produce a 'solution' that only works for a small section of users.
Which is what the current 'fixes' are.
>for Livingston. You and I both know that your business depends on solving
>problems. Clearly ISPs are begging you to solve this problem. Quit
>telling them how to run their business and do it.
We will not implement a 'fix' unless we can scale it across our user
base. And frankly while there have been a SMALL number of very vocal
users asking for this, over all the general demand is very small compared
to other things we've been asked for. It is usually the same group of
users asking repeatedly, with no general increase in demand since I first
saw this asked for.
We are not here to make everyone happy, we are here to make the majority of
users happy. Trying to make everyone happy is a losing battle. There are
many things with far higher demand than this. Especially when a number of
ISPs are also vocally telling us NOT to waste time on this - do it and
we piss them off, don't do it and we piss off someone else.
I have never heard from ANY ISP where billing for multiple use didn't work.
and I have heard from MANY where it did. I think I've heard from more ISPs
reporting that they like the billing solution and it works for them than
I have heard from ISPs looking for a technical solution.
And amongst those who want a technical solution, there is no agreement on
how it should work. The basic devision is: block new logins or reset old
ones.
If people claim to have a solution, then form the WG and be done with it.
>Similarly, Livingston should be dealing with "ping-o-death" and
We are.
>IP-spoofing vulnerabilities. Did I understand that ComOS has no filter
>that restricts packets to the assigned IP? Is that really hard?
You can filter to the pool right now, filtering to the specific IP is
an open RFE. And yes, it is NOT simple to do. We need to rewrite a
good chunk to enable that.
-MZ
-- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com <http://www.livingston.com/> Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588