Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Just curious: why not set up a separate entity to apply for IPv6 space? Do you get a cheaper fee (or other brownie points) if you already have an allocation? John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote (on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:59:30PM -0500): > Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. I would think multiple times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate organization to request

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

David Hubbard wrote (on Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:07:05AM -0400): > From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] > > > > > > It's like government services for the elderly. Though today many are a > > net drain on society, they've mostly earned their place with past > > action and it's the decent a

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Michael Dillon wrote (on Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:31:43PM +0100): > On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad wrote: > > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: > >> All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. > > > > No they are not. > > According to :

Re: SCO UNIX Errors

The best place to ask this question is on usenet:comp.unix.sco.misc. jacob miller wrote (on Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 11:40:27PM -0700): > Hi, > > Am getting the following error from my SCO UNIX box. > > Any idea as to what they mean. > > > > proto: 0, age: 1274191185 > > locks: inits: > > sock

Re: SCO UNIX Errors

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote (on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:27:09AM -0400): > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:39:43 EDT, "N. Yaakov Ziskind" said: > > The best place to ask this question is on usenet:comp.unix.sco.misc. > > This is, of course, if you can find a still-functional

Re: SCO UNIX Errors

William Pitcock wrote (on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:45:18AM -0500): > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 23:40 -0700, jacob miller wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am getting the following error from my SCO UNIX box. > > They mean "use an operating system not made by crackheads." There's a > reason why SCO switched from

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

[attribution removed, as I lost track of who said what] > > Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not > > respect your belief. > > > > ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new > > ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action t

Re: Convenience or slippery slope... or something else?

Jon Lewis wrote (on Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:44:02PM -0400): > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Reese wrote: > > >A friend brought this to my attention: > > > >http://ipq.co/ > > > >He saw it at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1678324 > > > >I'm not sure whether to shriek in joy or in pain. Will data from

Chase.com outage

Does anyone have any information (beyond the wimpy statement that "technical issues" were to blame) on the Chase outage? It seems that when a multibillion dollar company's major web site is down for more than a day, there must be juicy "technical issues" that beg to be told. So, can anyone dish?

Re: Chase.com outage

Zaid Ali wrote (on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:27:40AM -0700): > Isn't that reserved for beer sessions at NANOG? Bummer. I heard they don't lawyers into the beer sessions. :-) > On 9/16/10 9:13 AM, "N. Yaakov Ziskind" wrote: > > > Does anyone have any informati

Re: AS11296 -- Hijacked?

Rich Kulawiec wrote (on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:25:20AM -0400): > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:38:17AM -0300, jim deleskie wrote: > > As to his decision to block Gmail (or any other freemail provider), > everyone with sufficient knowledge in the field knows that these > operations are prolific and h

Re: EU elections - piratenpartei.net censored

Why is there *never* a moderator around when you need one? :-) Mike Lieman wrote (on Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 09:37:42PM -0400): > Copyright Laws, are just that. Laws. And the can be changed if The People > desire it. > > The issue I see with copyright TODAY is that there is effectively no entry >

Re: Cogent input

Justin Shore wrote (on Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:46:45AM -0500): > I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and > future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years > but by no means have I actively been keeping up. We've had Cogent for several years i

Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

Jack Bates wrote (on Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:52:01AM -0500): > John van Oppen wrote: > >I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our > >users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP... > >The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simpl

Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?

JC Dill wrote (on Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:02:25AM -0700): > Ross wrote: > > There seems to be a big misconception that he asked them to "hand over" > the info. As I read the OP, he asked Comcast to do something about it > and Comcast said "we can't do anything about it because we don't have >

Re: Coop Peering Fabric??

> > That's one of the reasons many of them incorporate as non-profits... > > Under the tax laws of most countries, the U.S. and Canada included, > > non-profits are legaly protected against acquisition by for-profits. > > > > Do any of these operations post their tax returns online? > > -M< The

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600): > On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > > Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they > > can't understand. Email addresses aren't phone numbers. > > It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason