That's evil.
Charge what it costs to provide each service.
If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then charge
more for it.
I imagine in a few years the tradeoff: IPv6 has less connectivity (IPv4 clients
can't reach you), but IPv4 is more expensive (pay for the addres
On 4/29/13, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> Therefore it is inevitable to reclaim unused address space as long as
> there's a demand for IPv4, wich will still be strong as long as major
> players refuse to do their jobs.
The RIRs are very limited in what unused resources they could seek to
reclaim; there
Le 03/04/2013 01:15, Frank Bulk a écrit :
> BiDi XFPs
Why not using a duplex 120km and a circulator[1] ? This could be far
more reliable if you avoid PC connectors on the way.
You may also mux several DWDM waves using this and a low-loss mux (found
<1.5dB for 8 channels).
Of course, for such len
Le 24/04/2013 07:46, Tore Anderson a écrit :
> Trying to reclaim and redistribute unused space would be a tremendous
> waste of effort.
It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small
blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy CGNs.
Not doing so would end up in courts for entry ba
On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
> OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating
> over about the next 5-7 years.
Yes... Which I interpret to result in an outcome of less service,
for more cost, for resi
I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating over
about the next 5-7 years.
Lee Howard sees roughly the same thing. (He has fancier math and better
statistics than I used).
Bottom line, it is unlikely t
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush wrote:
>> -- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
>> implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
> we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
> feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
Yes, I do real
> -- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
> implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
randy
On 4/28/13, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Doing away with IPv4 isn't a sane short-term goal for anyone
> who wants global internet connectivity/reachability, period.
Breaking global connectivity is bad. I don't see networks turning off ipv4.
I would favor differentiation of network characteristics --
> Doing away with IPv4 isn't a sane short-term goal for anyone
who wants global internet connectivity/reachability, period.
folk who advocate disconnecting from ipv4 should lead by example or
stfu. either way, it would reduce the drivel level.
randy
The last thing I would think anyone would do is tell a person the job they did
last time was sub par. Imagine telling a teenager the pipe bomb they built was
just not effective enough. As someone who has been on both sides of the fence,
I would give you a small bit of advice.. Don't anger it. An
>From Wikipedia:
Ultimately, #OpIsrael caused virtually no damage and was assessed by
the Israeli Government's National Cyber Bureau and by numerous
security experts and journalists to have been a failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIsrael
In message <05cd8f9b-46dd-4069-9ebe-2c922...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong
writes:
>
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Jima wrote:
>
> > On 2013-04-26 01:29, Don Gould wrote:
> >> I agree with others that there is still way to much XP and other non
> >> supporting platforms and I suspect that by the
13 matches
Mail list logo
