While most of the people are trying to save the internet from any form
of "goverment" and let it be free, this would be like shooting yourself
in the foot.
This would be great for troubleshooting things...I agree, but other than
that it would create a whole new plethora of privacy concerns.
We
This is the first reasonable, rational, and well-defined argument for not
making the transition to IPv6.
As to someone's question about "Are you a terrorist?" If there is such a
construct as a transitive noun, then this might qualify. People rarely
describe themselves as terrorists, typically non
Please don't feed the bigoted hypocritical trolls.
Regards,
-drc
On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Randy wrote:
> Just because it is from Iraq; does NOT mean by any streach of the imagination
> that OP is a terrorist!
> You need to get outside the box you are living in and learn to separate the
>
I agree, this is entirely unacceptable discourse for nanog.
Maybe you should take a closer look at your Ephesians quote there, Mister
'IPdog.'
-chris
From: Randy [randy_94...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 20:28
To: Network IPdog
Cc: nanog@n
Just because it is from Iraq; does NOT mean by any streach of the imagination
that OP is a terrorist!
You need to get outside the box you are living in and learn to separate the
forest from the trees!
You are "entitled" to you private-opinions. Don't post said-garbage on NANOG!
I do take except
On 11/25/12, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ammar Salih
> wrote:
> Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
> IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's wholly inadequate as an
> approximation for topographic locality within the network g
WHAT???
Is this the extent to which This-List has DEGENERATED???
How dare you make such a horrendous accusation Sir?
You may NOT like what OP has proposed. I don't either for more reasons than one!
However, YOU are neither qualified NOR authorised to ask such an appallingly
INSENSITIVE Questio
Et al,
There is one simple question that needs to be asked!
Ammar Salih @ ammar.sa...@auis.edu.iq Are you a terrorist?
Ephesians 4:32 & Cheers!!!
A password is like a... toothbrush ;^)
Choose a good one, change it regularly and don't share it.
-Original Message-
From: John Ad
Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location
data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
by commonly used encryption methods (i.e. HTTPS, which is up a few layers
in the stack) people can't be protected should this data be monitored by a
mali
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:08:15PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:
> > 2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so
> > location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible.
>
> Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been th
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:
> 2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so
> location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible.
Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's w
Just a friendly reminder that the RFP for NANOG 57 is approaching in just over
two weeks.
Best Regards,
-Dave Temkin
On Nov 8, 2012, at 11:48 AM, David Temkin wrote:
> NANOG Community,
>
> I know that we all just left Dallas after NANOG 56, but the NANOG Program
> Committee is already hard a
On 25/11/2012 02:02, Michael Butler wrote:
> In a number of jurisdictions and particularly in the EU, IP addresses
> themselves (any version) are considered Personally Identifiable
> Information (PII) and are expected/required to be protected as such.
actually no. The EU Article 29 Data Protectio
Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration Date: Sun, Nov 25, 2012
at 04:29:15AM + Quoting Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net):
>
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> > from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
>
> And not purposely, either - because
Thank you everyone, I appreciate your feedback and will try to summarize few
points in one email to avoid duplication .. apologies if I missed any.
> This is not data that should be sent on every packet. It becomes
redundant.
1- It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there
joel jaeggli (joelja) writes:
> On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> >
> >>from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
> >And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client
> >OSes. My guess is that a
16 matches
Mail list logo
