On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Strange... You seem to overcome it well enough to join in the >>> discussion on PPML, but not to actual propose changes to policy. >> i believe you are mistaken. i am not knowingly a subscriber to ppml, >> and am not, to the best of my knowledge, participating in any >> discussion(s) there. > > a search of my inbound and outbound mail for the last ten days shows no > mail to or from "ppml." > > so i can debug, could you please forward to me a message where you > believe i am participating in ppml?
Attached; this doesn't count your commentary of ARIN policies on other mailing lists, as it would be more numerous but less productive. In any case, we've fully left the realm of operational matters and scope of the NANOG list. /John Begin forwarded message: > From: Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 > naysayer...) > Date: February 21, 2011 9:00:50 PM EST > To: Dan Wing <dw...@cisco.com> > Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>, 'ARIN-PPML List' <arin-p...@arin.net> > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 >> That document conflates problems of NAT444 with problems of NAT44 >> with problems of bandwidth starvation with problems of CGN. > > it may require a delicate palate to differentiate the different flavors > of <bleep> > > randy >
