Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas wrote: > I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong > on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. > > Mike > I saw just a small swing of the pendulum toward the center, a nuanced meaning for "liberal".

Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity

Cameron Byrne allegedly wrote on 10/10/2010 15:38 EDT: > LTE provides some latency benefits on the wireless interface, but the > actual packet core architecture is very similar to GSM / UMTS. and it's going to be a long time before Local Breakout gets noticeably deployed.

Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)

On 11/08/2010 07:57 GMT+08:00, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: >> It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let >> me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens... >;-) >> >> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network archit

Re: Mastercard problems

On 12/09/2010 11:29 EST, Jim Mercer wrote: > amazon is selling a Kindle version of the Wikileaks released cables: > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/WikiLeaks-documents-expose-foreign-conspiracies/dp/B004EEOLIU/ "This book contains commentary and analysis regarding recent WikiLeaks disclosures, not the

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush wrote: > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at > > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker. >     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL) > > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09, Fred Baker wrote: > I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed > changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen. I guess I should clarify: I think ILNP is elegant. But the real Internet evolves incrementally, and only as needed. Othe

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

On 01/29/13 12:02, Jay Ashworth allegedly wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Rob McEwen" >> When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that >> ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties, >> then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the

Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:41, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25:46AM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > >> Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably >> violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create >> the Internet's topology. In othe

Re: EBAY and AMAZON

I think it's a troll, trying to shock you into clicking on something. On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > I think it might just be coincidence. I've gotten about 10 of them and > haven't been to ebay or amazon in months. > Most of them have been for >60 dollar books. > > Nick Ol

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > According to: > > > http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/ > > Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media > stream data, but only from the people we like" ser

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: > On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote: >> >> What's a "lawful" web site? >> > Now *there* is a $64,000 question. Even more interesting is, "Who gets to > decide day to day the answer to that question?" :) Common term in mobile operat

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not I mean a legal site. Sigh.

Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > IMHO, there is no amount of engineering that can fix stupid people doing > stupid things on both sides of the stupid lines. Yes but there is engineering to ensure that they have the opportunity to do the right thing in the first place. If we

Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size)

Oh this sure will be fun. For a good time, see how GSMA handles connectivity with IPXs. On Sep 26, 2013 1:28 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > >> sounds just like folks in

Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote: > It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI That was Civil War, for freed slaves. Here in NY, war of independence veterans were given at least 100 acres each. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract

Re: sort by agony

On 08/27/2010 01:46 EDT, JC Dill wrote: > What is Agony, and why would I want to sort by it? > Agony is our way of sorting flights to take into account price, > duration, and number of stops. There's more to a flight than its price, > so we provide this sort to give you better all-around results.

Re: NANOG NYC Event

On 5/31/08 12:36 PM, Rod Beck allegedly wrote: I strongly suggest that those heading to New York visit the great musems, architecture (Saint Patrick's Cathedral), and restaurants. You have the American Museum of Natural History, which includes an excellent Planetarium and just on the other side o

Re: NANOG NYC Event

... which isn't to say those all aren't wonderful.

Re: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation

Excerpts from yangyang. wang on Mon, Sep 08, 2008 09:20:38PM +0800: > Hi, everyone: > > For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS > number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest > paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. The p

Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators

Jorge Amodio allegedly wrote on 01/21/2010 10:41 EST: > As an starting point you should read "The Tao of the IETF" RFC4677 (currently, > update draft in progress). > > About your particular question read section 8.4.5. > > Regards > Jorge Right. And it's subtler than you think. Some network op

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

N. Yaakov Ziskind allegedly wrote on 02/23/2010 11:34 EST: > 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 ph

Re: Egypt 'hijacked Vodafone network'

On 02/03/2011 10:14 EST, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, andrew.wallace wrote: > >> Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of >> using its network to send pro-government text messages. >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694 > > Here is the

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35, wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said: > > Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ > > > > That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny > > that doesn't mean that repetition

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter wrote: > So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for > others? Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of competence or integrity. It could just be a broad witch hunt. > Apologies for the top post

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, wrote: > > On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said: > > > What about privacy concerns > > "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is blown at one level doesn't mean you give it away at every other

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

Yes indeed. -- sent from a tiny screen

Re: IT Survey Request: Win an iPad2 or Kindle!

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:38, JC Dill wrote: > The cynic in me wonders how they will track how many people I forwarded this > to. I plan to win the prize for "the person who refers the survey to the > most number of people" by forwarding it to millions of people.  :-) > > (I suspect that the priz

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:47, Chris Adams wrote: > I'd go so far as to say "user failure".  If I wanted cable TV > (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't > buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is > available at that location. Yeah, he messed up

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home? The essential point is: if people have the bandwidth, they fill it, sometimes with uses we haven't dreamed up yet. In the USA at least, creativity and productivity are _often_