Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

business. There is a large piece of the world that doesn't want ICANN to be the authority. No public RSN that cares about its credibility will create collisions.     - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse

wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:08:25PM -0400, James R. Cutler wrote: >    Actually,  many naming and addressing management experts consider that >    the existence of a root defines a unique namespace. The existence of a root *zone* yes. We really should separate root *servers* from *root*

Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers

ambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Turkey has switched Root-Servers

you should approach ICANN with alternate proposals. Regards.     Cutler At 9/27/2005 11:46 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: Hi James, James R. Cutler wrote: Peter, I must have missed something here. Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US?  And, if

[ON TOPIC] Was: Re: GSM Association and NeuStar Sign Agreement to Offer Root DNS Services

sk of later collision, and isn't on topic here. brandon - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Overview: (What If?) ccTLD Delegation Question

be sure to have plenty of redundancy in my DNS (physically separate NS's, multiple DNS servers, power, etc.)  and I won't brook no spammers.  Not from my .jt ccTLD! - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Opinion] Re: IPv6 news

lt to start building private IPv6 networks now. -- Crist J. Clark   [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications    (408) 933-4387 - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re:

Thank you.  Best explanation of on-list unsubscribe I have read. Cutler At 11/4/2005 04:24 PM -0800, Kyle Lutze wrote: Ron Muir wrote: unsubscribe     Here's how to unsubscribe: - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

  addressing. Choose one." He has since pointed out that this may not be strictly true when considering VPN technologies.     Dave - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Security problem in PPPoE connection

eful.  Too big, whatever it is. - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan

imarily by speed and port count, memory costs can be substantial. At 7/24/2007 11:50 AM -0400, Chad Oleary wrote: However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm missing in operating v4/v6 combined for some time? Chad - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

DECNet Good Old Days (spun from ...network boundaries...)

http://www.cesidianroot.com/ - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question on Loosely Synchronized Router Clocks

tle temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 240/4

nsupported, or gear from vendors that no longer exist? As long as this stuff generally works, nobody's likely to replace it. James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[DCHPv6] was Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers

ather not manually configure. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Using x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 host addresses in supernets.

ng those addresses. I doubt this is typical, but I bet it's still around in at least a few places. If you're seriously considering using these addresses, these are other possible issue you need to consider. DS James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial

53 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On phone networks, flat rate kinda works because a single phone call is a very tiny fraction of the shared resource. James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'm going to stay on the NANOG list anyway

Whoops! I'm still coming to grips with multihoming. According to your thinking, my many years on the NANOG mailing list were wrong and you tell me I should leave. I don't think I can allow you to do that, Andrew. Paul Vixie, Dillon, Bush, and others have given many examples of appropriat

Re: Blocking mail from bad places

a copy of the message, including all the headers. -- - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Blocking mail from bad places

wrote: - Original Message - From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>James R. Cutler To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote: One problem with

Re: Security gain from NAT

llon. What they say makes much sense and avoids the semantic quibbling that has consumed too much of NANOG mailing list bandwidth. We already know that "All dragons are scotsmen, but not all scotsmen are dragons." - James R. Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED]