I'm sure I'm going to regret posting this, if for no other reason than that
I will immediately start receiving more spam, and I suspect that I am just
re-stating things that TLi and others have been trying to state both here
and on PPML, but I guess I just can't resist today...
[Disclaimer: I don
Uh-oh, two postings to NANOG in as many days... hopefully, this will be
my last.
> [[pushed the wrong button last time. This is the complete reply]]
Oh, the irony in that statement... this whole argument has certainly pushed
"the wrong button" for me.
>
> > - join a local IXP, which may be
This is a follow-up to my and Jason's presentation from Wednesday.
Several people mentioned in the hallways that they were interested in
following this issue and possibly helping work on the solution. If you
are one of them and haven't already seen a message subscribing you to
the mailing list, p
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Oliver Bartels wrote:
> Hi Gert,
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:06:00 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> >Ummm, well, this is a damn fast plane if it will reach another continent
> >1843 times per day (or even "per week")... - which should be the only
> >time the BGP a
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:28:49AM -0700, Vince Fuller wrote:
> > One might also imagine that more globally-friendly way to implement this
> > would have been to build a network (VPN would be adequate) between the
> > ground stations and assign each plane a prefix out of
>> The comment still applies. Imagine that this system were implemented
>> globally on all international/intercontinental air routes. It would still
>> be nice to avoid having each of those airplanes cause a globally-visible
>> routing update whenever it crosses some geographical boundary.
>
> Th
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:00:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > why on earth would you want to go and hack this stuff together,
> > knowing that it WILL NEVER WORK
>
> Because I have read reports from people whose technical expertise I
> trust. They modified the TCP/IP code of Linux an
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:48:00AM -0600, Alain Durand wrote:
> 240/4 is tainted. The fact that some code exist somewhere to make it work is
> good, but the reality is that there are tons of equipment that do not
> support it. Deploying a large network with 240/4 is a problem of the same
> scale a
