From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Tue Sep 12 10:48:58 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08518 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 25E2C5DE0E; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0CB785DE03; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27885DDA2 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 10:47:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.170.5]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15911; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:47:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id HAA07044; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA04779; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:46:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Stateless Proxies To: aaa-wg@merit.edu, diameter@diameter.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk All, I would like to send a feeler to see whether there is a need for stateless proxies. Currently, the DIAMETER protocol supports both stateful and stateless (btw, I want to revamp the stateful side). However, if there is no need for stateless we could greatly simplify the protocol. The only caveat, is that if a proxy goes down, responses will be lost and will have to be retransmitted by the NAS. Comments? Ideas? PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Tue Sep 12 14:28:46 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA11211 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 08A065DD9B; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:28:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EB5045DDF7; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com [206.47.27.232]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8B35DD9B for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (IDENT:500@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28127 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:26:52 -0400 Message-Id: <200009121826.OAA28127@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> To: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:46:02 PDT." Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:26:31 -0400 From: Alan DeKok Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > I would like to send a feeler to see whether there is a need for > stateless proxies. Currently, the DIAMETER protocol supports both > stateful and stateless (btw, I want to revamp the stateful > side). However, if there is no need for stateless we could greatly > simplify the protocol. Protocol simplifications are generally nice. Many "stateless" radius servers do maintain some state, if only for re-transmits of proxy requests. So the stateless radius model hasn't worked that well for radius. > The only caveat, is that if a proxy goes down, responses will be > lost and will have to be retransmitted by the NAS. Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes which are not directly involved with the retransmits. Alan DeKok. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Tue Sep 12 19:17:20 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA15241 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1FA745DDFC; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F38D55DE00; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB305DDFC for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02004 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:15:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id QAA22153; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA16801; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:13:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies To: Alan DeKok Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <200009121826.OAA28127@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > I would like to send a feeler to see whether there is a need for > > stateless proxies. Currently, the DIAMETER protocol supports both > > stateful and stateless (btw, I want to revamp the stateful > > side). However, if there is no need for stateless we could greatly > > simplify the protocol. > > Protocol simplifications are generally nice. Right > > Many "stateless" radius servers do maintain some state, if only for > re-transmits of proxy requests. So the stateless radius model hasn't > worked that well for radius. > > > The only caveat, is that if a proxy goes down, responses will be > > lost and will have to be retransmitted by the NAS. > > Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be > made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes which > are not directly involved with the retransmits. > well, if a stateful proxy goes down in the chain, the previous proxy would retransmit and eventually give up. This would require the NAS to timeout and try again (and a different path would then be chosen). Is this what you meant? PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 10:19:55 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02411 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DC1ED5DE03; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id CA0E65DDFD; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wodc7-2.corprelay.mail.uu.net (wodc7-2.corprelay.mail.uu.net [192.48.96.69]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC7D5DD9C for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iadserve0.iad.eng.us.uu.net by wodc7mr2.ffx.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: iadserve0.iad.eng.us.uu.net [153.39.152.19]) id QQjgmb16718 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:19:16 GMT Received: from localhost by iadserve0.iad.eng.us.uu.net with ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: stuartb@localhost) id QQjgmb28366 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Stuart A Barkley To: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies In-Reply-To: <200009121826.OAA28127@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Alan DeKok wrote: > "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > > I would like to send a feeler to see whether there is a need for > > stateless proxies. Currently, the DIAMETER protocol supports both > > stateful and stateless (btw, I want to revamp the stateful > > side). However, if there is no need for stateless we could greatly > > simplify the protocol. How about eliminating stateful proxies? > Protocol simplifications are generally nice. Agree. > Many "stateless" radius servers do maintain some state, if only > for re-transmits of proxy requests. So the stateless radius model > hasn't worked that well for radius. Our don't. By not maintaining any state you are able to handle a lot more NASes with a single set of proxies. All they need is network bandwidth and cpu (plus disk space and throughput if you are logging everything). Very little memory is required. > > The only caveat, is that if a proxy goes down, responses will be > > lost and will have to be retransmitted by the NAS. > > Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be > made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes > which are not directly involved with the retransmits. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 10:28:59 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02671 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AB0425DD95; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:36 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 967A25DD9C; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com [206.47.27.232]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EF25DD95 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (IDENT:500@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA32486 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:27:13 -0400 Message-Id: <200009131427.KAA32486@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> To: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:13:22 PDT." Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:27:13 -0400 From: Alan DeKok Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be > > made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes which > > are not directly involved with the retransmits. > > > well, if a stateful proxy goes down in the chain, the previous proxy would > retransmit and eventually give up. This would require the NAS to timeout and > try again (and a different path would then be chosen). > > Is this what you meant? Not really. My assumption was that the NAS would not know anything about (possibly multiple) proxies handling a request. I also assume that each request is re-transmitted and timeouts are done on a hop-by-hop basis. (I haven't looked at the latest Diameter requirements, so I don't know about its end-to-end versus hop-by-hop behaviour) So if an intermediate link goes down, the proxy closest to that intermediate link works around it. I don't see how making the NAS re-transmit the request makes much difference, or helps. e.g. N -> P1 -> P2 -> P3 -> AAA If P3 goes down, I don't see why the whole chain is broken for a given request, which would require the NAS to 'rediscover' that P1 and P2 are up, and then P2 would choose another proxy P3', to get to the end AAA server. The same result can be acheived with hop-by-hop semantics for discovery and timeouts. If there is a requirement for end-to-end communication and signalling, then my comments are not relevant. Alan DeKok. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 10:29:41 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02690 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:29:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id E6BF25DE04; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:29:21 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D18AF5DDFD; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:29:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.databus.com (p101-44.acedsl.com [160.79.101.44]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807F85DD9C for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from barney@localhost) by mx.databus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA32749; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:29:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:29:08 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: Stuart A Barkley Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies Message-ID: <20000913102908.A32722@mx.databus.com> References: <200009121826.OAA28127@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from stuartb@UU.NET on Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:15AM -0400 Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk And how does the alleged stateless proxy ever switch from a server that's down? As I've said before, I don't know how a truly stateless proxy could ever be used on a real network. Barney Wolff On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:15AM -0400, Stuart A Barkley wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > > > > I would like to send a feeler to see whether there is a need for > > > stateless proxies. Currently, the DIAMETER protocol supports both > > > stateful and stateless (btw, I want to revamp the stateful > > > side). However, if there is no need for stateless we could greatly > > > simplify the protocol. > > How about eliminating stateful proxies? > > > Protocol simplifications are generally nice. > > Agree. > > > Many "stateless" radius servers do maintain some state, if only > > for re-transmits of proxy requests. So the stateless radius model > > hasn't worked that well for radius. > > Our don't. By not maintaining any state you are able to handle a lot > more NASes with a single set of proxies. All they need is network > bandwidth and cpu (plus disk space and throughput if you are logging > everything). Very little memory is required. > > > > The only caveat, is that if a proxy goes down, responses will be > > > lost and will have to be retransmitted by the NAS. > > > > Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be > > made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes > > which are not directly involved with the retransmits. > > From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 10:36:41 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02859 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D7A0F5DE06; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C5CC05DDFD; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A1D5DD9C for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22362 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:36:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id HAA22311; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA01408; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:34:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies To: Alan DeKok Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <200009131427.KAA32486@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > > Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be > > > made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes which > > > are not directly involved with the retransmits. > > > > > well, if a stateful proxy goes down in the chain, the previous proxy would > > retransmit and eventually give up. This would require the NAS to timeout and > > try again (and a different path would then be chosen). > > > > Is this what you meant? > > Not really. > > My assumption was that the NAS would not know anything about > (possibly multiple) proxies handling a request. I also assume that > each request is re-transmitted and timeouts are done on a hop-by-hop > basis. (I haven't looked at the latest Diameter requirements, so I > don't know about its end-to-end versus hop-by-hop behaviour) > > So if an intermediate link goes down, the proxy closest to that > intermediate link works around it. I don't see how making the NAS > re-transmit the request makes much difference, or helps. > > e.g. N -> P1 -> P2 -> P3 -> AAA > > If P3 goes down, I don't see why the whole chain is broken for a > given request, which would require the NAS to 'rediscover' that P1 and > P2 are up, and then P2 would choose another proxy P3', to get to the > end AAA server. The same result can be acheived with hop-by-hop > semantics for discovery and timeouts. > > If there is a requirement for end-to-end communication and > signalling, then my comments are not relevant. > What you've described above is exactly the way DIAMETER works. If a node goes down, the proxies, which themselves do hop-by-hop retransmissions, find a way around them. The stateful vs. stateless question I had had more to do with the return path. So, let's call this return path failure detection (or something equally bad). The question is whether the response MUST traverse the SAME set of nodes (in reverse order, of course) that the request had taken. Stateful proxies would require that the reverse path be identical, because they are perhaps checking for AVPs, enforcing policies, etc. Stateless proxies (that only forward packets and log) probably do not need the reverse path to be the same. PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 10:38:49 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02907 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 93CE75DDFD; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 81C1C5DDD1; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B07A5DD9C for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23516; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:38:27 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id HAA22569; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA01454; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies To: Barney Wolff Cc: Stuart A Barkley , aaa-wg@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <20000913102908.A32722@mx.databus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > And how does the alleged stateless proxy ever switch from a server that's > down? As I've said before, I don't know how a truly stateless proxy > could ever be used on a real network. In the DIAMETER spec, the Destination-NAI AVP is used to figure out the domain to which the response needs to be forwarded to. This process is *identical* to the use of the User-Name to figure out the route in the request. Once the packet makes it to the proper domain, the host portion of the Destination-NAI is used to identify the specific NAS (or FA). PatC > > Barney Wolff > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:15AM -0400, Stuart A Barkley wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > > > "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > > > > > > I would like to send a feeler to see whether there is a need for > > > > stateless proxies. Currently, the DIAMETER protocol supports both > > > > stateful and stateless (btw, I want to revamp the stateful > > > > side). However, if there is no need for stateless we could greatly > > > > simplify the protocol. > > > > How about eliminating stateful proxies? > > > > > Protocol simplifications are generally nice. > > > > Agree. > > > > > Many "stateless" radius servers do maintain some state, if only > > > for re-transmits of proxy requests. So the stateless radius model > > > hasn't worked that well for radius. > > > > Our don't. By not maintaining any state you are able to handle a lot > > more NASes with a single set of proxies. All they need is network > > bandwidth and cpu (plus disk space and throughput if you are logging > > everything). Very little memory is required. > > > > > > The only caveat, is that if a proxy goes down, responses will be > > > > lost and will have to be retransmitted by the NAS. > > > > > > Or by a previous proxy in the chain. That requirement should be > > > made explicit, and the process should be made invisible to nodes > > > which are not directly involved with the retransmits. > > > > > From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 11:03:42 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03325 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 89C7C5DE10; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 687555DE13; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.databus.com (p101-44.acedsl.com [160.79.101.44]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04315DE10 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from barney@localhost) by mx.databus.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA32924; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:00:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:00:55 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies Message-ID: <20000913110055.A32890@mx.databus.com> References: <20000913102908.A32722@mx.databus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Pat.Calhoun@Eng.Sun.COM on Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:36:36AM -0700 Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Pat, DIAMETER is counting on SCTP to keep state. Thus a "stateless" DIAMETER proxy is not truly stateless. Whether state should be kept at two levels is questionable - but at which level to keep state is an "interesting" design decision. Barney On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:36:36AM -0700, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: > > And how does the alleged stateless proxy ever switch from a server that's > > down? As I've said before, I don't know how a truly stateless proxy > > could ever be used on a real network. > > In the DIAMETER spec, the Destination-NAI AVP is used to figure out the domain > to which the response needs to be forwarded to. This process is *identical* to > the use of the User-Name to figure out the route in the request. Once the > packet makes it to the proper domain, the host portion of the Destination-NAI > is used to identify the specific NAS (or FA). From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Wed Sep 13 11:05:54 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03392 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1F8165DE0D; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 0E3215DE09; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18B05DE08 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07598; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:05:14 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id IAA28473; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA02051; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Robust Reverse Path (was: Stateless Proxies) To: Barney Wolff Cc: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" , aaa-wg@merit.edu In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <20000913110055.A32890@mx.databus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Correct, which is why I proposed changing the name of this problem. Again, I am refering to allowing the reverse path to be different from the forward path, making the protocol more reliable, which is all the Destination-NAI AVP provides. PatC > Pat, DIAMETER is counting on SCTP to keep state. Thus a "stateless" > DIAMETER proxy is not truly stateless. Whether state should be kept > at two levels is questionable - but at which level to keep state is > an "interesting" design decision. > Barney > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:36:36AM -0700, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: > > > And how does the alleged stateless proxy ever switch from a server that's > > > down? As I've said before, I don't know how a truly stateless proxy > > > could ever be used on a real network. > > > > In the DIAMETER spec, the Destination-NAI AVP is used to figure out the domain > > to which the response needs to be forwarded to. This process is *identical* to > > the use of the User-Name to figure out the route in the request. Once the > > packet makes it to the proper domain, the host portion of the Destination-NAI > > is used to identify the specific NAS (or FA). From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Thu Sep 14 10:06:42 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA21081 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:06:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3B27C5DDD7; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 201F75DDE3; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aaa.interlinknetworks.com (interlink.merit.edu [198.108.95.110]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D635DDD7 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Interlinknetworks.com (unknown [198.108.5.239]) by aaa.interlinknetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BB29; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39C0DB6F.598EC0AD@Interlinknetworks.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:06:39 -0400 From: David Spence Organization: Interlink Networks, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Cc: Barney Wolff , aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Robust Reverse Path (was: Stateless Proxies) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I guess I don't see a lot of value to allowing the return path to be different. Since it should not take a long time to answer an AAA request, all the servers on the forward path have been demonstrated to have been up just a short time ago and so have a reasonably high probability of still being up when the reply is generated. To allow the return path to be different is to require a mechanism to make it the same in the case of proxies which do have a need to be on the return path. "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > Correct, which is why I proposed changing the name of this problem. Again, I > am refering to allowing the reverse path to be different from the forward > path, making the protocol more reliable, which is all the Destination-NAI AVP > provides. > > PatC > > Pat, DIAMETER is counting on SCTP to keep state. Thus a "stateless" > > DIAMETER proxy is not truly stateless. Whether state should be kept > > at two levels is questionable - but at which level to keep state is > > an "interesting" design decision. > > Barney > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:36:36AM -0700, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: > > > > And how does the alleged stateless proxy ever switch from a server that's > > > > down? As I've said before, I don't know how a truly stateless proxy > > > > could ever be used on a real network. > > > > > > In the DIAMETER spec, the Destination-NAI AVP is used to figure out the domain > > > to which the response needs to be forwarded to. This process is *identical* to > > > the use of the User-Name to figure out the route in the request. Once the > > > packet makes it to the proper domain, the host portion of the Destination-NAI > > > is used to identify the specific NAS (or FA). -- David Spence email: DSpence@Interlinknetworks.com Interlink Networks, Inc. phone: (734) 821-1203 775 Technology Drive, Suite 200 fax: (734) 821-1235 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 U.S.A. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 15 12:49:53 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13772 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2B07A5DDA6; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1293A5DE3F; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com [206.47.27.232]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02AB5DDA6 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (IDENT:500@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10961 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:47:07 -0400 Message-Id: <200009151647.MAA10961@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> To: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:34:30 PDT." Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:47:06 -0400 From: Alan DeKok Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > The stateful vs. stateless question I had had more to do with the > return path. So, let's call this return path failure detection (or > something equally bad). The question is whether the response MUST > traverse the SAME set of nodes (in reverse order, of course) that > the request had taken. I would presume so. If not, then it would be possible for the NAS to send a request to server A (and thus a proxy chain), and get a reply from server B. Personally, I would find this confusing. I can't recall offhand a protocol which has this sort of behaviour. Bob asks Alice if he can use service X, and Fred answers "Yes". I don't see how supporting that sort of behaviour will help. Or, at least, that it will have more benefits than drawbacks. Alan DeKok. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 15 12:52:58 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13860 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:52:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 5F1295DE43; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4E0515DE3F; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newman.frascone.com (frascone.com [216.62.83.25]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284385DE31 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from chaos@localhost) by newman.frascone.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13549; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:52:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:52:23 -0500 From: David Frascone To: Alan DeKok Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies Message-ID: <20000915115222.A13461@newman.frascone.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alan DeKok , aaa-wg@merit.edu References: <200009151647.MAA10961@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200009151647.MAA10961@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com>; from aland@striker.ottawa.on.ca on Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:47:06PM -0400 X-encrypt-payload: no Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk I've seen it happen all the time. I type in www.ebay.com, and I get a response from www1.ebay.com. At least with redudnant web servers, it's quite common. On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:47:06PM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote: > "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" wrote: > > The stateful vs. stateless question I had had more to do with the > > return path. So, let's call this return path failure detection (or > > something equally bad). The question is whether the response MUST > > traverse the SAME set of nodes (in reverse order, of course) that > > the request had taken. > > I would presume so. If not, then it would be possible for the NAS > to send a request to server A (and thus a proxy chain), and get a > reply from server B. > > Personally, I would find this confusing. I can't recall offhand a > protocol which has this sort of behaviour. > > > Bob asks Alice if he can use service X, and Fred answers "Yes". > > > I don't see how supporting that sort of behaviour will help. Or, at > least, that it will have more benefits than drawbacks. > > Alan DeKok. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 15 12:55:01 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13921 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 868035DE48; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 743025DE31; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com [206.47.27.232]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F465DE46 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (IDENT:500@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11040 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:53:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200009151653.MAA11040@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> To: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:52:23 CDT." <20000915115222.A13461@newman.frascone.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:53:46 -0400 From: Alan DeKok Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk David Frascone wrote: From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 15 13:04:57 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14112 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:04:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 681FF5DE4A; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 5732E5DE49; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com [206.47.27.232]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8325DE3F for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (IDENT:500@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11093; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:03:40 -0400 Message-Id: <200009151703.NAA11093@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> To: aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:52:23 CDT." <20000915115222.A13461@newman.frascone.com> Cc: David Frascone Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:03:39 -0400 From: Alan DeKok Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk David Frascone wrote: > I've seen it happen all the time. I type in www.ebay.com, and I get a > response from www1.ebay.com. No. You really don't get that sort of behaviour. There are a number of things which may be happening here: www.ebay.com resolves to 192.168.1.{1,2,3} 192.168.1.1 resolves to www1.ebay.com 192.168.1.2 resolves to www2.ebay.com 192.168.1.3 resolves to www3.ebay.com So connecting to 'www.ebay.com' means you may actually be on any one of www{1,2,3}.ebay.com. So you DO get a response from the same machine you contacted. Any confusion is just DNS games. Or, HTTP redirects. You say "www.ebay.com", and it says "not here, go to www1.ebay.com". Your connection to www.ebay.com is dropped, and you open a new one to www1.ebay.com. You don't know, as your browser doesn't tell you that's what it's doing. So *you* are the one choosing (via your web browser) to go from one server to another. In either case, you ALWAYS receive a response from the web server you contacted. > At least with redudnant web servers, it's quite common. With a web server, you NEVER get a reply from a server you haven't contacted directly. If nothing else, TCP doesn't work that way. The situation I was describing would be analogous to you opening connections to two different web servers, sending a GET on one connection, and receiving the reply on the other connection. This is obviously nonsense. Diameter can implemet redirects, like HTTP. The client sends a request, and gets either no response, or a "this chain is down" response. The client then chooses another server. I don't see any case where it would simplify the protocol or the implementation, if replies were allowed from servers other than the one which received the original request. Alan DeKok. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 15 13:25:45 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14361 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:25:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D83935DE51; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C6F095DE4E; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E3D5DE50 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.134.6]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29278; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:25:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id KAA24462; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA22049; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:23:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies To: Alan DeKok Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu, David Frascone In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <200009151703.NAA11093@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > I don't see any case where it would simplify the protocol or the > implementation, if replies were allowed from servers other than the > one which received the original request. ummm... to be clear, I stated that eliminating this feature would simplify the protocol, not the other way around. Less features, less complex. PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 15 16:22:16 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA16966 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:22:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DB6585DEA6; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C75D45DE7F; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucp1.nwnexus.com (uucp1.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.110]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B7B5DEAE for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from internaut.com (uucp@localhost) by uucp1.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id NAA09056 for merit.edu!aaa-wg; Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.57.137.69] by internaut.com (NX5.67e/NeXT-3.0) id AA04688; Fri, 15 Sep 00 13:01:54 -0800 From: "Bernard Aboba" To: Subject: Announcing: The AAA design team Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:19:02 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Now that we have rechartered the AAA WG in order to focus on protocol development, the need for results remains as urgent as ever. In order to make rapid progress towards a AAA protocol standard, it is critical that we quickly identify the issues that need to be resolved, and apply our creative energies towards developing solutions to those problems. In order to bring as much critical thinking and judgment as possible to the problem early in the effort, we have formed a design team, which will provide recommendations to be discussed within the AAA WG as a whole. Our hope is that the design team work will catalyze our understanding of the problem and encourage other input from the AAA WG. As always, we encourage WG participants with thoughts on potential improvements to the protocol or issues to post their ideas or concerns to the list. To bring a rich perspective to the problem and provide expertise in a number of areas, we have recruited prominent experts in a variety of fields, including AAA. Given their busy schedules, we are very honored that they have consented to participate in the effort. Please welcome the AAA Design team: AAA DESIGN TEAM Bernard Aboba & Dave Mitton, Chairs Ran Atkinson Pat Calhoun Erik Guttman David Nelson Juergen Schoenwaelder Barney Wolff Lixia Zhang In terms of schedules, we expect the design team effort to take approximately 6 weeks. The first task of the design team will be to review and if necessary, supplement, the Evaluation Team assessment of issues in the DIAMETER submission. The remainder of the design team effort will be spent developing solutions to the identified issues. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Sat Sep 16 16:55:11 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA01626 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:55:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B9FE55DE8F; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 541365E017; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from freeatlast.com (philly-ip-7-155.dynamic.ziplink.net [209.206.22.155]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 06DC25DF02 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:15:38 -0400 (EDT) From: To: Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 11:21:50 Message-Id: <118.262061.552686@freeatlast.com> Subject: AD:Family Reunion T Shirts & More Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Message sent by: Kuppler Graphics, 32 West Main Street, Maple Shade, New Jersey, 08052, 1-800-810-4330. This list will NOT be sold. All addresses are automatically added to our remove list. Hello. My name is Bill from Kuppler Graphics. We do screenprinting on T Shirts, Sweatshirts, Jackets, Hats, Tote Bags and more! Do you or someone you know have a Family Reunion coming up? Kuppler Graphics would like to provide you with some great looking T Shirts for your Reunion. Kuppler Graphics can also provide you with custom T's and promotional items such as imprinted magnets, keychains, pens, mugs, hats, etc. for your business or any fundraising activity (church, school, business etc.) We also can provide you with quality embroidery. We are a family owned company with over 15 years of experience. All work is done at this location. No middle man. Our prices are great! Please call toll free 1-800-810-4330 if the reply to email is down for a quote or to discuss your screenprinting needs Bill Kuppler Graphics From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Mon Sep 18 11:18:27 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA29183 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 09F965DF36; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A645D5E05D; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jake.akitanet.co.uk (jake.akitanet.co.uk [212.1.130.131]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941665E099 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ppp-11a-21.3com.telinco.net ([212.159.148.21] helo=foo.akitanet.co.uk) by jake.akitanet.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 13awe5-000KVF-00; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:51:26 +0100 From: Paul Robinson Organization: Akita Ltd. To: Alan DeKok , aaa-wg@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stateless Proxies Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:28:12 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="" Cc: David Frascone References: <200009151703.NAA11093@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> In-Reply-To: <200009151703.NAA11093@cpu1751.adsl.bellglobal.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00091809521800.07627@foo.akitanet.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Alan DeKok wrote: > So *you* are the one choosing (via your web browser) to go from one > server to another. Or more accurately, either the DNS resolver on your machine has received multiple replies as to where www.ebay.com exists and has selceted the first of them (which is why the order they are returned in from the authoritative DNS server is rotated randomly), or your browser has been explicitly told to go elsewhere - nobody is choosing anything, we're talking about explicit instructions from ebay.com in this case, not ebay saying "you decide". I think a detailed conversation about how DNS load balancing actually works is not really appropriate here however, so.... > In either case, you ALWAYS receive a response from the web server > you contacted. No, with *redirects* you do, with multiple DNS entries, you never contact any server known as "www.ebay.com", just told at the DNS query stage that you should be looking elsewhere - you might think me pedantic here, but it's important, as we shall see... > Diameter can implemet redirects, like HTTP. The client sends a > request, and gets either no response, or a "this chain is down" > response. The client then chooses another server. > > I don't see any case where it would simplify the protocol or the > implementation, if replies were allowed from servers other than the > one which received the original request. There are lots of arguments for proxying as opposed to redirects. For a start it makes managing shared secrets of NAS kit a whole load easier - if you have 20 NAS boxes, say 5 proxy auth servers and there may be upto say 100 providers wanting seperate authentication databases (I have worked in such an environment), then managment of proxies is a lot easier than having to inform your 100 providers of a new naslist just because you're moving a NAS to another IP, or installing a shiny new one. In an ideal world - in *my* ideal world, at least - servers would be able to be completely transparent proxies so that the NAS never knows where the authentication actually took place. The NAS sends a request to proxy1, proxy1 sends request onto auth1, auth1 replies and sends back to proxy1, which replies back to the NAS. The fun stuff happens when you realise you're on UDP and you need to do "clever things" in the event of a proxy going down (and yes I'm talking about a hacked around implementation of RADIUS here more than DIAMETER - and yes, I *have* made this work). Redirecting means that proxy1 sends a packet back to the NAS saying "don't ask me, go and ask auth1 because I can't be bothered being intelligent about this", which to go back to our DNS games from above would be considered a very lazy DNS server - think something along the lines of a root server in that it won't answer the lookup for a particular record, but it will tell you where to go instead ("ns0.domain.com is authoritative for the domain"). If nas1 sends an auth request to proxy1, proxy1 sends to auth1 but then auth1 is not able to get the packet to proxy1, should it try sending to proxy2 or not? Because we're playing with UDP, proxy2 could easily spoof the packet to make it look like it came from proxy1, and nothing bad would happen as long as the implementation on the NAS was such that it would happily receive duplicate authentication acknowledgements (in the event of the problem being that proxy1 received the packet and continued, but an ack back to auth1 never occured). In short, in TCP terms the orginal idea is ridiculous, but in UDP terms, spoofing is easy, plausible and not really out of the question as it would ensure that correct authentications got through ASAP. However, if proxy2 could spoof, then so can eleet.hacker.com which can cause the obvious problems. My vote is proxying is good, redirects BAD, let's not worry too much about getting the answer back and instead ensure that lacking an ACK another request is made. Oh, and I also think that TCP is still better for this job than UDP, even though there is the overhead of 3-way handshakes. Just my 2p worth, but then, what do I know - I'm only 22 and I'm hanging around on IETF mailing lists. I need to date more. :-) -- Paul Robinson From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Mon Sep 18 16:37:38 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06778 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:37:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id B6D7E5DD8E; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A5F1B5DD8D; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF935DD8C for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05713; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:37:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id NAA09257; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:37:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA07701; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:35:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: New DIAMETER API I-D available To: aaa-wg@merit.edu, diameter@diameter.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk All, We just sent the first DIAMETER API I-D out to the secretariat. For those of you that are interested, and do not wish to wait for the official notice, the I-D is available on www.diameter.org. Given that this is our first try, I suspect that there will be plenty of issues/concerns. Any comments regarding the API are most welcomed! Thanks, PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Tue Sep 19 19:27:31 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA28011 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3CB115DDBB; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 2CAFC5DDB0; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uobmail.balamand.edu.lb (unknown [193.227.175.7]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CB05DD97 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnr.net ([216.77.217.141]) by uobmail.balamand.edu.lb (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with SMTP id AAC352F; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:22:04 -0200 To: nile333@kadet.co.uk From: Subject: So, How in the heck have you been? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:22:04 -0200 Message-ID: <7736FB64742.AAC352F@uobmail.balamand.edu.lb> Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk So, How in the heck have you been? Do you remember holding previous conversations regarding business and money making opportunities? I did not send this to you in error! You Said: If only I could find an easier way to make a higher income! and If I had more money, I could spend more time with my Family, and less time at work and I sure could use more money so I could pay off my bills once and for all! And I would love to get involved in a business in which will generate money while I am not at work (like a Gas Pump)! Dear Friend, There is a possibility that we haven’t met, but you were chosen by someone to receive this E-Mail. Please, please, print this off and read thoroughly. Be sure that you don’t miss any of the points outlined. Then put it down, and then read it again. I am sending you a whole lot of information in which you might not understand the first time you read it. If you don’t believe this program will work for you, send it to 10-20 of your closest friends (in which you trust deeply), and ask them what they think? This really works! Have faith, don’t miss this opportunity, get involved also, and it will work for you as it does for us!!!! Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, A Major Nightly News Program recently dedicated an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make extra money at home. The results have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting. You will understand only if you get involved! ********** THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW ********** **** Print This Now For Future Reference **** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make AT LEAST $50,000 in less than 90 days! If not, forward this to someone who would like to make this kind of money. It works (like designed) but only for those who follow it to the letter! Please read this program THEN READ IT AGAIN!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE. LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!! It does NOT require you to come into contact with people or make or take any telephone calls. Just follow the instructions, and you will make money. This simplified e-mail marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME! E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using e-mail. Get your piece of this action!!! Hello, My name is Johnathon Rourke, I’m from Rhode Island. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. Two years ago, the corporation I worked for the past twelve yearsdown-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year,I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over$35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just could not seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life. I am writing to share the experience I hopes that this could change your life FOREVER. FINANCIALLY$$$!!! In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion,were not cost effective. They were either toodifficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too muchfor me to risk to see if they would work. But as I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program.I didn’t send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly. I couldn’t believe my eyes! Here was a MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legalaspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal ! After determining the program was LEGAL I decided WHY NOT!?!?? Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don’t need any paper for printing to send out the program, and because I also send the product (reports) by e-mail, my only expense is my time. In less than one week,I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON’T SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU! DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL. Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2. 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much need new car! Please take your time to read this plan, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER$!!! Remember, it won’t work if you don’t try it. This program does work, But you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won’t work and you’ll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose toparticipate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! $$ Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, cpuld not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn’t working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn’t me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don’t have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, THE RICH GET RICHER ANDTHE POOR GET POORER. The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to move up or get rich, inflation will see to that You have just received the rest of your life, with NO RISK and JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT. You can make more money in the next few months than you have everimagined.I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copyof this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000 and your name will be on everyone of them! REMEMBER though, ------ the MORE YOU SEND OUT, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent. IT IS UP TO YOU!! NOW DO IT!! BEFORE YOU delete this program from your in box, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. $$$ IT WORKS!!! $$$ Jody Jacobs Richmond, VA. HERE’S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS$$$$!!!! This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days. Before you say BULL, please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter,but a perfectly legal money making business. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we sell and deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is simply order filling by e-mail! The product is informational and instructional material, keys to the secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of E-COMMERCE, the information highway, the wave of the future ! PLAN SUMMARY: (1) You order the 4 reports listed below ($5 each) They come to you by e-mail. (2) Save a copy of this entire letter and put your name after Report #1 and move the other names down. (3) Via the internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major search engines to locate hundreds of bulk e-mail service companies (search for bulk email) and have them send 25,000 50,000 emails for you about $49+. (4) Orders will come to you by postal mail simply e-mail them the Report they ordered. Let me ask you isn’t this about as easy as it gets? By the way there are over 50 MILLION e-mail address with millions more joining the internet each year so don’t worry about running out or saturation. People are used to seeing and hearing the same advertisements every day on radio/TV. How many times have you received the same pizza flyers on your door? Then one day you are hungry for pizza and order one. Same thing with this letter. I received this letter many times then one day I decided it was time to try it. YOU CAN START TODAY UST DO THESE EASY STEPS: STEP #1 ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can’t sell them if you don’t order them). For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report.MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, by e-mail each of the four reports.Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000’s of people who will order them from you. STEP #2. ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER a. Look below for the listing of the four reports. b. After you’ve ordered the four reports, delete the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, ACCURATELY! STEP #3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire e-mail to send by e-mail to prospects. Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk email software and email address so you can send it out to thousands of people while you sleep! Remember that 50,000+ new people are joining the internet every month! Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing ( surely you can afford $20 and initial bulk mailing cost). You obviously already have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL let’s say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we’ll assume you and all those involved email out only 2,000 programs each. Let’s also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. The response could be much better. Also, many people will email out thousands of thousands of programs instead of 2,000 (Why stop at 2000?) But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2.Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That’s 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2 PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let’s say you decide to start small to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response). Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets only 10 downline members. Look how this small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: 1St level your first 10 send you $5........................$50 2nd level 10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100)............$500 3rd level 10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)......$5,000 4th level 10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000)..$50,000 $$$$$$ THIS TOTALS ------------------------------------------------55,5550 $$$$$ AMAZING ISN’T IT Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100’s of participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for years! THINK ABOUT IT! People are going to get emails about this plan from you or somebody else and many will work this plan the question is Don’t you want your name to be on the emails they will send out? *** DON’T MISS OUT !!!*** ***JUST TRY IT ONCE !!!*** ***SEE WHAT HAPPENS !!!*** ***YOU'LL BE AMAZED !!!*** ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out with YOUR name and address on it will be prompt because they can’t advertise until they receive the report! GET STARTED TODAY: PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. Note:-- ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in two sheets of paper. On one of those sheets write: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. REPORT #1b The Insider’s Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: NICK NICHOLAS 473 MICHIGAN ST ST.PAUL, MN 55102 NOTE: I and every member below are dedicated at helping you with this program so it will work for you also. TRY US! REPORT #2 The Insider’s Guide to Sending Bulk E-Mail on the Internet ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: DIANE COLON 1811 TAMARIND AVE # 206 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90028 REPORT #3 The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: MELISSA HOGENMILLER 3709 MONHEIM ROAD CONOVER, WI 54519 REPORT #4 How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: CATHY BARROW 10 SYCAMORE STREET CONWAY, SC 29527 *************TIPS FOR SUCCESS*************** TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order you MUST send out the requested product/report. It is required for this to be a legal business and they need the reports to send out their letter (with your name on them). --ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. Be patient and persistent with this program- If you follow the instructions exactly results WILL FOLLOW. $$$$ ************ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES *************** Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don’t receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mail until you do. Then a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don’t continue advertising or sending e-mail until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. To generate more income, simply send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question: ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? 1. If the answer is no, then please look at the following facts about this super simple MLM program: NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory! NO Telephone calls, NO big cost to start! Nothing to learn, No skills needed! (Surely you know how to send email?) 2. No equipment to buy you already have a computer and internet connection so you have everything you need to fill orders! 3. You are selling a product which does NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR SHIP! (Email copies of the reports are FREE!) 4. All of your customers pay you in CASH! This program will change your LIFE FOREEVER!! Look at the potential for you to be able to quit your job and live a life of luxury you could only dream about! Imagine getting out of debt and buying the car and home of your dreams and being able to work a super-high paying leisurely easy business from home! $$$ FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE! $$$ ACT NOW! Take your first step toward achieving financial independence. Order the reports and follow the program outlined above __ SUCCESS will be your reward. Thank you for your time and consideration. PLEASE NOT: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning now income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (A Federal Agency) 1-800-827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. Your earnings are highly dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained on this site and in the report constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this site or report constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The earnings amounts listed on this site and in the report are estimates only. If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington DC. Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is necessary. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Tue Sep 26 16:50:15 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA02355 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id C77035DE34; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A7FE35DEAD; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ctron-dnm.ctron.com (ctron-dnm.cabletron.com [12.25.1.120]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9EB5DE34 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA23493; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roc-mail2.ctron.com(134.141.72.230) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com via smap (4.1) id xmafe2908; Tue, 26 Sep 00 16:52:41 -0400 Received: from new-ims-av.ctron.com (new-ims-av.ctron.com [134.141.200.50]) by roc-mail2.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA17149; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 134.141.200.123 by new-ims-av.ctron.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:12:56 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Received: by new-exc1.ctron.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:10:44 +0100 Message-ID: <29752A74B6C5D211A4920090273CA3DC01D284A3@new-exc1.ctron.com> From: "Waters, Stephen" To: "'aaa-wg@merit.edu'" , "'syslog-sec@employees.org'" Subject: Need for 'audit-trail' in accounting and other logging utilities Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:10:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, I'm interested in what folk think about the need for a general approach to provide authenticated 'application' data - including Accounting records and syslog logs. The secure-syslog and aaa accounting seem to share a need for auditable database records. Any other application that generates logging streams to a 'server' could use the same mechanism adopted for these. The common requirements at the application level are at least: 1) to authenticate that an authorised 'client' delivered the record, and when. 2) the authentication 'signature' can be checked any time after the record was recieved These requirements are similar to those used in EDI discussions (S/MIME(CMS), PGP/MIME) where e-mail and other 'documents' are authenticated after the fact. IPSEC could be used to protect from network attacks, but does not help with a verifiable audit on the application data. Do folk thing there is any chance of re-using something to do this (EDI?) or do we start from scratch? Steve. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Tue Sep 26 22:57:23 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA06913 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:57:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 44C645DDEC; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id F35715DDEA; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.proctors.com.au (mrkal-gw.kal.emerge.net.au [203.57.132.65]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 108D35DDB9; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from monorailpc by mail.proctors.com.au (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.05 (274.9 11-27-1996)) with SMTP id 48256967.000F804D; Sun, 27 Sep 1970 10:49:27 +0800 To: donald453@bbc.co.uk From: Subject: Porche Boxter or Luxury Cruise Earn $$$ In Days This Works!!! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Message-Id: <20000927025633.108D35DDB9@segue.merit.edu> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Friend, This really works! Have the faith, don't miss this opportunity, get involved also, and it will work for you as it does for us!!!!! Thank you for your time and interest. This email contains the ENTIRE PLAN of how YOU can make $50,000 or more in the next 90 days simply sending email! Seem impossible? Just read on and see how easy this is.... Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting. You will understand once you try it yourself! ********* THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW ********* *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days, please read this program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!! It does NOT require you to come into contact with people or make or take any telephone calls. Just follow the instructions, and you will make money. This simplified e-mail marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME! E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using email. Get your piece of this action!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello - My name is Johnathon Rourke, I'm from Rhode Island. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. Two years ago, the corporation I worked for for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn´t seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life. I am writing toshare the experience in hopes that this could change your life FOREVER. FINANCIALLY$$$!!! In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work. But as I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program. I didn´t send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly. I couldn´t believe my eyes! Here was a MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL I decided "WHY NOT!?!??" Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don´t need any money for printing to send out the program, and because I also send the product (reports) by e-mail, my only expense is my time. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON´T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car! Please take your time to read this plan, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER$!!! Remember, it won´t work if you don´t try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won´t work and you´ll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! $$ Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn´t working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn´t me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don´t have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate...because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich." Inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on every one of them! Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent. IT IS UP TO YOU!! NOW DO IT!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before you delete this program from your in box, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. $$$ IT WORKS!!! $$$ Jody Jacobs Richmond, VA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HERE´S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$$$$!!!! This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days. Before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making business. As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we sell and deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is simply order-filling by email! ******************************************************************* The product is informational and instructional material, keys to the secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of E- COMMERCE, the information highway, the wave of the future! PLAN SUMMARY: (1) You order the 4 reports listed below ($5 US each.) They come to you by email. (2) Save a copy of this entire letter and put your name after Report #1 and move the other names down. (3) Via the internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major search engines to locate hundreds of bulk email service companies (search for "bulk email") and have them send 25,000 - 50,000 emails for you about $49+). (4) Orders will come to you by postal mail - simply email them the Report they ordered. Let me ask you - isn´t this about as easy as it gets? ************************************************************ By the way there are over 50 MILLION email addresses with millions more joining the internet each year so don´t worry about "running out" or "saturation". People are used to seeing and hearing the same advertisements every day on radio/TV. How many times have you received the same pizza flyers on your door? Then one day you are hungry for pizza and you order one. Same thing with this letter. I received this letter many times - then one day I decided it was time to try it. ************************************************************ YOU CAN START TODAY - JUST DO THESE EASY STEPS: STEP #1. ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can´t sell them if you don´t order them). -- For each report, send $5.00 (US) CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, by e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000´s of people who will order them from you. STEP #2. ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER a. Look below for the listing of the four reports. b. After you´ve ordered the four reports, delete the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f. Insert your name and address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, ACCURATELY! STEP #3. SAVE THIS LETTER Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire email to send by email to prospects. Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk email software and email addresses so you can send it out to thousands of people while you sleep! Remember that 50,000+ new people are joining the internet every month. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing; surely you can afford $20 (US) and initial bulk mailing cost. You obviously already have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let´s say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we´ll assume you and all those involved email out only 2,000 programs each. Let´s also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. The response could be much better. Also, many people will email out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. (Why stop at 2000?). But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5% 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That´s 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2: PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let´s say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Look how this small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: 1st level--your first 10 send you $5..................................$50 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100).............$500 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1000)........$5,000 4th level--10 members from those 1000 ($5 x 10,000)..$50,000 $$$$$$ THIS TOTALS ----------$55,550 $$$$$$ AMAZING ISN´T IT? Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100´s of participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for years! THINK ABOUT IT! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People are going to get emails about this plan from you or somebody else and many will work this plan. The question is, don´t you want your name to be on the emails they will send out? * * * DON´T MISS OUT!!! * * * JUST TRY IT ONCE!!! * * * * * SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!! *** YOU´LL BE AMAZED!!!* * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out with YOUR name and address on it will be prompt because they can´t advertise until they receive the report! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GET STARTED TODAY: PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. Notes: ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in two sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper write: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b) your e-mail address, and (c) your name & postal address. REPORT #1 "The Insider´s Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Andrew Skidmore 9379 Alexander Rd Alexander, NY 14005 USA REPORT #2 "The Insider´s Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Lars Pedersen Skejbygaardsvej 7, 1, 10 8240 Risskov Denmark REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: John Cole Werner PO Box 3281 Lihue, HI 96766 REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Zac Majors 2242 E Woodchuck Way Sandy, UT 84093 ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. It is required for this to be a legal business and they need the reports to send out their letters (with your name on them!) -- ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. -- Be patient and persistent with this program - If you follow the instructions exactly - results WILL FOLLOW. $$$$ ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don´t receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don´t, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. To generate more income, simply send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program, please answer one question. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? If the answer is no, then please look at the following facts about this super simple MLM program: 1. NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory! NO Telephone calls, NO big cost to start! NOthing to learn, NO skills needed! (Surely you know how to send email?) 2. No equipment to buy - you already have a computer and internet connection - so you have everything you need to fill orders! 3. You are selling a product which does NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR SHIP! (Emailing copies of the reports is FREE!) 4. All of your customers pay you in CA$H! This program will change your LIFE FOREVER!! Look at the potential for you to be able to quit your job and live a life of luxury you could only dream about! Imagine getting out of debt and buying the car and home of your dreams and being able to work a super-high paying leisurely easy business from home! $$$ FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE! $$$ ACT NOW! Take your first step toward achieving financial independence. Order the reports and follow the program outlined above-- SUCCESS will be your reward. Thank you for your time and consideration. PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal Agency) at 1-800-827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. Your earnings are highly dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained on this site and in the report constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this site or report constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The earnings amounts listed on this site and in the report are estimates only. If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington, DC. ================================================ Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is necessary. From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Thu Sep 28 11:33:35 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05389 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 54B375DDFE; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 3F30A5DE13; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:33:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09575DDFE for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ISI.EDU (jet.isi.edu [128.9.160.87]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15939; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200009281533.IAA15939@boreas.isi.edu> To: IETF-Announce: ; Subject: RFC 2924 on Accounting Attributes and Record Formats Cc: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU, aaa-wg@merit.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=NextPart Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:33:03 -0700 From: RFC Editor Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk --NextPart A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 2924 Title: Accounting Attributes and Record Formats Author(s): N. Brownlee, A. Blount Status: Informational Date: September 2000 Mailbox: n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz, blount@alum.mit.edu Pages: 36 Characters: 75561 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-aaa-accounting-attributes-04.txt URL: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2924.txt This document summarises Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) documents related to Accounting. A classification scheme for the Accounting Attributes in the summarised documents is presented. Exchange formats for Accounting data records are discussed, as are advantages and disadvantages of integrated versus separate record formats and transport protocols. This document discusses service definition independence extensibility, and versioning. Compound service definition capabilities are described. This document is a product of the Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Working Group of the IETF. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution.echo Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RFCs. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="RFC-INFO@RFC-EDITOR.ORG" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <000928083045.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG> RETRIEVE: rfc DOC-ID: rfc2924 --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="rfc2924.txt"; site="ftp.isi.edu"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="in-notes" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <000928083045.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Thu Sep 28 13:05:38 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA06482 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 048815DE83; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id E039D5DE80; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5B65DE78 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.170.5]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07764; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:05:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id KAA21294; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA08742; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:02:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: New DIAMETER I-Ds available To: aaa-wg@merit.edu, diameter@diameter.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk All, Just wanted to let you know that I've finally posted the updates to the DIAMETER Internet Drafts. The updates only address the tag field, which has been replaced with the Grouped-AVP. Please note that the AAA Design Team has in its charter to look at data representation, and figure out whether there is anything missing in the protocol (or anything that needs to be fixed). I am posting these new drafts in order for the design team to have something updated to work with (as opposed to the old drafts that made use of the 'T'ag field). The updated I-Ds can be found at www.diameter.org. The following are the new I-Ds: draft-calhoun-diameter-17.txt draft-calhoun-diameter-accounting-08.txt draft-calhoun-diameter-mobileip-11.txt draft-calhoun-diameter-nasreq-05.txt draft-calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt-06.txt draft-calhoun-diameter-strong-crypto-05.txt Thanks, PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Thu Sep 28 19:54:04 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA11994 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2F75D5DE11; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 1AB795DDE3; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercurio.raudo.udo.edu.ve (unknown [150.186.64.21]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448A65DD99 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 150.186.64.21 (sdn-ar-002iadmoiP282.dialsprint.net [63.178.136.84]) by mercurio.raudo.udo.edu.ve (Build 98 8.9.3/NT-8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00157; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:37:19 -0400 From: 71690898@yahoo.com Received: from mcook@yahoo.com by news@yahoo.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA01721 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 07:03:01 -0600 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 00 07:03:01 EST To: info@yahoo.com Subject: GET FREE CABLE TV LEGALLY! Message-ID: <> Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > > NOTE: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL TV > > DE-SCRAMBLER. IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THIS > > INFORMATION PLEASE CLICK DELETE NOW. THANK YOU-- > > > > LEGAL CABLE TV DE-SCRAMBLER > > Want to watch Sporting Events?--Movies?--Pay-Per-View?? > > You can assemble from electronic store parts for about $12.00. > > We Send You: > > E-Z To follow Assembly Instructions. > > E-Z To read Original Drawings. > > Electronic parts lists. > > PLUS SOMETHING NEW YOU MUST HAVE! > > Something you can't do without. > > THE UP-TO-DATE REPORT: USING A DESCRAMBLER LEGALLY > > Warning: You should not build a TV Descrambler without > > reading this report first. > > Frequently Asked Questions--CABLE TV DESCRAMBLER > > Q: Will the descrambler work on Fiber, TCI, Jarrod > > A: The answer is YES. > > Q: Do I need a converter box? > > A: This plan works with or without a converter box. > > Specific instructions are included in the plans for each! > > Q: Can the cable company detect that I have the descrambler? > > A: No, the signal descrambles right at the box and does > > not move back through the line! > > Q: Do I have to alter my existing cable system, > > television or VCR? > > A: The answer is no! > > Q: Does this work with my remote control? > > A: The answer is yes. The descrambler is > > manually controlled--but very easy to use! > > Q: Can you email me the plans? > > A: No the program comes with an easy to follow picture guide. > > Q: Does this work everywhere across the country? > > A: Yes, every where in the USA plus England, > > Brazil, Canada and other countries! > > Q: Is this deal guaranteed? > > A: Yes, if you are unhappy for any reason we will refund your money. > > Q: When I order, when will I get my stuff? > > A: We mail out all orders within 48 hours of receiving them. > > ORDER INFORMATION > > ACT WITHIN THE NEXT 14 DAYS AND RECEIVE TWO FREE BONUS!! > > THE CABLE MANUAL! This manual contains hard to find information your > > cable company does not want you to know. Also receive The RADAR > > JAMMER PLANS! Never get another speeding ticket. Build you own > > radar jammer, this unit will jam police radar so they can't get a reading > on > > your vechicle. Radar jammers are legal in 48 states. It is simple to > build. > > The FREE BONUSES ALONE ARE WORTH ACTING NOW! > > THE CABLE DESCRAMBLER KIT COMES WITH A THIRTY DAY > > MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! IF YOUR NOT COMPLETELY SATISFIED, > > SEND THE CABLE DESCRAMBLER KIT BACK AND YOU KEEP > > THE BONUSES FOR FREE. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE > > ONLY FREE CABLE TV TO GAIN! ACT NOW! SIMPLY SEND > > $14.00 CHECK OR, MONEY ORDER. > > INFORMATION TO: > > > > NET SERVICES > > PO BOX 42013 > > URBANDALE, IA 50322 > > > > > > > > THIS INFORMATION IS SOLD FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY! > > This mailing is done by an independent marketing co. > > We apologize if this message has reached you in error. > > Save the Planet, Save the Trees! Advertise > > via E mail. No wasted paper! Delete with > > one simple keystroke! Less refuse in our Dumps! > > This is the new way of new millenium! > > If you would like to be removed move210@dcemail.com > > > From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 29 14:06:03 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25347 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id CC0E55DE31; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id A49E25DE38; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ertpg14e1.nortelnetworks.com (ertpg14e1.nortelnetworks.com [47.234.0.35]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B135DE31 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard00m.ca.nortel.com by ertpg14e1.nortelnetworks.com; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:04:41 -0400 Received: from zbl6c008.corpeast.baynetworks.com ([132.245.205.58]) by zcard00m.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id TZZ7WGSY; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:04:28 -0400 Received: from mitton.nortelnetworks.com (mitton.us.nortel.com [47.16.85.170]) by zbl6c008.corpeast.baynetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id TJWSS79V; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:04:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000929135639.00d97d50@ZBL6C008.corpeast.baynetworks.com> X-Sender: dmitton@ZBL6C008.corpeast.baynetworks.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:04:39 -0400 To: aaa-wg@merit.edu, diameter@diameter.org From: "David Mitton" Subject: Re: new Grouped-AVP In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk At 9/28/00 01:02 PM -0400, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: >Just wanted to let you know that I've finally posted the updates to the >DIAMETER Internet Drafts. The updates only address the tag field, which has >been replaced with the Grouped-AVP. >... > >The updated I-Ds can be found at www.diameter.org. The following are the new >I-Ds: > >draft-calhoun-diameter-17.txt ... Interesting... Does anyone see the need for "Named" or "Numbered" Groups? That is, add a string or numeric value before the enclosed AVPs. Dave. --------------------------------------------------------------- David Mitton ESN: 248-4570 Advisor, Nortel Networks 978-288-4570 Direct ServiceWare, IP Mobility 978-288-3030 FAX Billerica, MA 01821 dmitton@nortelnetworks.com From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 29 14:10:43 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA25390 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2E66C5DE63; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:10:24 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 110DA5DE61; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:10:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B075DE5C for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.13]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27815; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:10:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from nasnfs.eng.sun.com (nasnfs.Eng.Sun.COM [10.6.84.20]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id LAA18706; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mordor (mordor [129.146.120.122]) by nasnfs.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA10644; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:08:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Reply-To: "pcalhoun@eng.sun.com" Subject: Re: new Grouped-AVP To: David Mitton Cc: aaa-wg@merit.edu, diameter@diameter.org In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <4.3.2.7.2.20000929135639.00d97d50@ZBL6C008.corpeast.baynetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk > At 9/28/00 01:02 PM -0400, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: > > >Just wanted to let you know that I've finally posted the updates to the > >DIAMETER Internet Drafts. The updates only address the tag field, which has > >been replaced with the Grouped-AVP. > >... > > > >The updated I-Ds can be found at www.diameter.org. The following are the new > >I-Ds: > > >draft-calhoun-diameter-17.txt > ... > > Interesting... > > Does anyone see the need for "Named" or "Numbered" Groups? > > That is, add a string or numeric value before the enclosed AVPs. > What would the label be used for? PatC From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Fri Sep 29 15:44:15 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA26696 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 958655DDA6; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 852125DD9F; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprch1.nortel.com (smtprch1.nortelnetworks.com [192.135.215.14]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980385DD95 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zbl6c016.corpeast.baynetworks.com (actually zbl6c016) by smtprch1.nortel.com; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:41:58 -0500 Received: from zbl6c008.corpeast.baynetworks.com ([132.245.205.58]) by zbl6c016.corpeast.baynetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id T3C0R1SP; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:41:53 -0400 Received: from mitton.nortelnetworks.com (mitton.us.nortel.com [47.16.85.170]) by zbl6c008.corpeast.baynetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id TJWSS8D7; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:41:53 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000929151536.00d93960@ZBL6C008.corpeast.baynetworks.com> X-Sender: dmitton@ZBL6C008.corpeast.baynetworks.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:42:13 -0400 To: aaa-wg@merit.edu From: "David Mitton" Subject: Re: new Grouped-AVP In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Hmm... I hadn't meant to hit all those lists with that message. Forgot to edit the header before sending... Two birds with one stone, re below: ---- - I believe grouping is highly desirable. This new AVP is a step in the right direction. - Is it enough? Do we need a value with the grouping? Why? a) identify each group... perhaps the first AVP in the group could do this? (this doesn't hold up too well) b) identify the type of the group! This would be useful if there are multiple groups at a peer level, and it could also convey expectations of the AVPs inside the group. ---- A grouping scenario: A compulsory tunnel service that supports multiple tunneling technologies and load balancing (alternate servers). We wish to return multiple tunnel protocol proposals, and multiple servers and security associations for each service. It would be nice if the server could propose the servers in a round-robin order to cause the NASes to spread load. Simple tagging has a one dimensional problem with this situation. The ability to group the tunnel services and the server attributes for each server within the service solves the problem. eg: Group Tunnel-Type= ATMP Tunnel-Preference = 2 Group Tunnel-Server-Endpoint = [x.y.z.33] Tunnel-Password = srvsecret Group Tunnel-Server-Endpoint = [x.y.z.24] Tunnel-Password = srvsecret2 Group Tunnel-Type= Bay-DVS Tunnel-Preference = 1 Group Tunnel-Server-Endpoint = [x.y.z.69] Tunnel-Password = srvsecreta Group Tunnel-Server-Endpoint = [x.y.z.68] Tunnel-Password = srvsecretb Group Tunnel-Type= L2TP Group Tunnel-Server-Endpoint = [x.y.z.1] Tunnel-Password = xyzzy Group Tunnel-Server-Endpoint = [x.y.z.8] Tunnel-Password = sesame --- Naming or typing the groups could add and as values to the Group AVPs. Comments? Dave. At 9/29/00 02:08 PM -0400, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: > > At 9/28/00 01:02 PM -0400, pcalhoun@eng.sun.com wrote: > > > > >Just wanted to let you know that I've finally posted the updates to the > > >DIAMETER Internet Drafts. The updates only address the tag field, > which has > > >been replaced with the Grouped-AVP. > > >... > > > > > >The updated I-Ds can be found at www.diameter.org. The following are > the new > > >I-Ds: > > > >draft-calhoun-diameter-17.txt > > ... > > > > Interesting... > > > > Does anyone see the need for "Named" or "Numbered" Groups? > > > > That is, add a string or numeric value before the enclosed AVPs. > > >What would the label be used for? > >PatC --------------------------------------------------------------- David Mitton ESN: 248-4570 Advisor, Nortel Networks 978-288-4570 Direct ServiceWare, IP Mobility 978-288-3030 FAX Billerica, MA 01821 dmitton@nortelnetworks.com From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Sat Sep 30 15:56:13 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA11363 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D974D5DE3C; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C45165DE7E; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucp1.nwnexus.com (uucp1.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.110]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA885DE3C for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from internaut.com (uucp@localhost) by uucp1.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id MAA00135; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.57.137.69] by internaut.com (NX5.67e/NeXT-3.0) id AA03696; Sat, 30 Sep 00 12:37:08 -0800 From: "Bernard Aboba" To: Cc: Subject: Call for input on the DIAMETER submission Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:54:50 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Now that the AAA WG has been re-chartered to focus on protocol design, it is appropriate to say a few words about the roadmap. As noted in the milestones, the AAA WG has a fairly tight timeline, with the goal of producing a document worthy of IETF proposed standard status by April, 2001. Since a working group can move no faster than the speed at which it thinks, we are going to need to do a lot of thinking in a short period of time in order to meet this deadline. Since many of you have asked how you can contribute to that thought process and aid in the protocol design process, I thought I'd say a few words about the process and how you can pitch in. In my experience, one of the important aspects of any project is deciding what needs to be done to complete the task. In essence, we need a set of metrics so that we can figure out how far along we are, and when we're done. Therefore, our first task is coming up with statement of problems with the current DIAMETER submission. Ideally each issue can be described in a few paragraphs, but in some cases, one or more Internet drafts may be necessary to describe the problem in more depth. An example of a (fledgling) detailed problem statement is available at: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/AAA/aaa-transport.txt In the next few weeks, we need your help in coming up with that problem statement. In terms of process, our intent is to summarize the issues in an Internet draft. Once this is available, we will then solicit drafts from the WG that address the identified problems. To get things started, Dave Mitton and I have come up wiht a strawman list of issues. No doubt, we have things out, and that's where you come in. Also, as always if you have comments or concerns relating to the protocol submission, or wish to submit an Internet-draft relating to one or more of these problems, please go ahead and do so. DIAMETER SUBMISSION ISSUES (FIRST CUT) ============================ - Document Organization; including clarity and completeness [Ch:1] - Error Handling & messages [Ch:2] - Accounting; Real-Time and Batch, Format considerations, Third-party flows, and acknowledgements. [Ch:3 , Ev:, 3.4.4] - IPv6 Support; Running on and supporting IPv6 clients [Ch:4, Ev:3.1.10] - Transport; Acknowledgments, Re-xmit, Failover and recovery sensing, congestion control issues [Ch:5, Ev: 3.1.2, - Proxy Support; Acknowledgements, Re-xmit, Failover and recovery sensing, congestion control issues, state retention, message modification [Ch:6, Ev:3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.3.7] - RADIUS Compatibility; process and limitations [Ch:7, Ev:3.2.2] - Security; Hop-to-Hop, End-to-End, msg segments, individual attributes, barriers to implementation, firewall implications [Ch:8, Ev:3.1.5, 3.5.2] - Data Model; Nesting, grouping, lists, sets [Ch:9, Ev:4.3] - SNMP Support; required for protocol- MIBs, traps, etc. [Ch:10] - Re-Authentication & Authorization; dynamic Session Control [Ev:3.2.5, 3.3.5] - Server/Resource Management State; expectations, recovery reconciliation [Ev: 3.3.7] - Access Rules and Filters; [Ev: 3.3.6] From owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Sat Sep 30 16:13:22 2000 Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA11511 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id D63F35DF01; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@merit.edu Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id C6B895DEFD; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucp1.nwnexus.com (uucp1.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.110]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5BA5DE4C for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from internaut.com (uucp@localhost) by uucp1.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id NAA00746; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.57.137.69] by internaut.com (NX5.67e/NeXT-3.0) id AA03849; Sat, 30 Sep 00 12:54:13 -0800 From: "Bernard Aboba" To: Cc: Subject: Call for submission of I-Ds Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:11:54 -0700 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aaa-bof@merit.edu Precedence: bulk As noted in the previous message, we have identified a number of areas on which we need work in order to deliver an IETF-quality proposed standard protocol by April 2001. In looking over the list of issues, there are some areas that stand out in particular as being in need of attention. Rather than waiting until we come up with a complete list of problems to solicit your input, we thought we'd ask for help on these problems right away: 1. Server/Resource management state. What we could really use is a comprehensive review of all the mechanisms, along the lines of the work we did on accounting with the attributes and management drafts. If someone has the time to devote to this (any graduate students looking for a research topic?) please let Dave and I know. 2. Security. The evaluation committee noted that the existing mechanisms are rather heavy weight and require the protocol to incorporate both ASN.1 *and* a TLV approach. What we need is a lightweight mechanism that is simple to deploy and implementable on NASes. 3. MIBs. It's a bit early to start on a MIB, but it would be helpful for someone to do an analysis of what additional MIB functionality could be added, beyond what is in the current RADIUS MIBs. Presumably with SNMPv3, it will be possible to do additional things, such as additional SETs, or management of security-related parameters. Any takers? 4. Data modeling. Suggestions and ideas welcome. 5. Transport and failover/failback. This is looking like a *major* topic. I've gotten started on a draft on the subject, but there is obviously a lot more to do. If you're knowledgeable about TCP/SCTP and have time to pitch in, let me know.