On Mar 3, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>
>>> Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer
>>> to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not
>>> necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
>>>
>>>
>> Care to explain what tha
just to undermine the ITU's (only) point,
why don't we simply have IANA delegate lets say 25% of the available ipv6
space to AFRINIC and APNIC now, like, -now- already...
if they're so concerned about the "developing countries" surely, most of
them would be in those regions :P and that should
On 03/02/2010 11:46 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).
Maintenance of "GeoIP"-databases becomes easier and less error-prone ?
Possible less out of date becau
>> Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
>> upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).
>
> Maintenance of "GeoIP"-databases becomes easier and less error-prone ?
>
> Possible less out of date because of it.
>
> We've seen complaints about th
Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer
to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not
necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
upside to making it easy to c
On 03/01/2010 09:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
>>> network...
>>>
>>>
>> Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100
> From: Adam Waite
>
>
> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
> > network...
> >
> >
> Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
While ESnet is funded by th
On 3/1/2010 12:53 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
>>>
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
>>> Not since 1992..what you're lookin
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet,
and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it
existed, you are
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
> >
> >> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
> >> network...
> >>
> >>
> > Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet
> > and SIPRnet, and ESnet
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
>
>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
>> network...
>>
>>
> Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
>
> ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
> CB3ROB scribbled:
>
>> let the riots commence 2.0
>
> Oh dear oh dear...
>
>> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the
>> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which
> is
>> ha
On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:25 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said:
>
>>> (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of
>>> running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network
>>
>> Hm, I was under the imp
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said:
> > (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of
> >running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network
>
> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
> network...
I would not b
On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
>
>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
>> network...
>>
>>
> Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
>
> ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
And that
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
>> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the
>> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which is
>> hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal...
>
> I wonder who those ITU members ar
Skeeve wrote:
> Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than
> competition though.
Yes sir, in theory/conceptually.
> The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to
> do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as
> But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on
> why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication
> networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on
> the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same
> geographica
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
CB3ROB scribbled:
> let the riots commence 2.0
Oh dear oh dear...
>keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the
>current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which
is
>hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal...
I wonder who those ITU m
Andy scribbled:
Competition is not a bad thing.
>>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for
my
>>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the
>>> government makes me ask them for some integers.
>> Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alte
On 1 Mar 2010, at 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
>>> Competition is not a bad thing.
>
>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my
>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the
>> government makes me ask them for some integers.
On 01/03/2010 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>>> Competition is not a bad thing.
>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my
>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the
>> government makes me ask them for some integers.
> Assuming
On 26/02/2010 22:59, Bill Stewart wrote to nanog:
> Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem.
The ITU is magic. I am no expert, but I am aware that sometimes the ITU
decision making processes leads to member states having to adopt those
decisions as telecoms law.
I would not want to replace
24 matches
Mail list logo
