Re: Central registries (was RE: Chinese IPv9)
Christian -- Your mesage seems to presume rather optimistically that there can be a workable technical alternative to central registries. If not -- and I'm skeptical -- your stop digging advice might translate into stop improving the net. At the very least, it's an open question whether it is possible to build an Internet without central registries. Until we prove otherwise -- and I would certainly support research and experiments to devise an alternative -- central registries will remain essential, and no amount of wishful thinking will eliminate the need for a *political* solution to the management question. The IETF is in the business of technical solutions, but that doesn't mean that there *is* a technical solution to every problem. Where there isn't (or might not be) it is our duty to make the public and politicians aware of the political issues and the technical tradeoffs. (The fact that such political discussions tend to be messy and unsatisfying doesn't make the duty any less real.) We should be careful not to dodge this responsibility by pretending that we're sure we can come up with an alternative when there isn't one on the horizon. In short, I think it would be a mistake to declare a moratorium on the creation of IANA registries without at least a plausible theory about what kind of alternatives might be possible. -- Nathaniel On Jul 19, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: Paul, this IPv9 hoopla strikes me as another research project harping the nationalistic chord in order to get funding. This is not exactly news. It was a common undertone in many European research proposals in the 1980's and 1990's, and it is also a classic line in NSF or DARPA proposals. The officials in the Chinese government may fall for that line a few times, but I believe that they are smart and will eventually allocate their grants based on technical merit rather than non-technical arguments. There is however an interesting technical point behind all these discussions of number allocations. The general Internet architecture is largely decentralized, but we have accepted to rely on a few centralized functions. The obvious ones are DNS names and IP addresses, but there are many others, such as port numbers and generally the various registries held by IANA. Centralized registries are expedient, and are not a big concern when the network is small, or when the central authority is virtuous. However, the network is big and the central authority becomes a locus of power. The history text books teach us that loci of power attract politicians and politician-friendly profiteers, and the Internet does not appear to be an exception. It seems that we, the IETF community, have been complacent to centralization and have dug ourselves in a centralization hole. We may hope to get out of it by ensuring that ICANN remains in charge and remains virtuous, but that goes very much against all historic precedents. When in a hole, one should obviously first stop digging: that would mean a moratorium on the creation of IANA registries. One should also think hard about technical alternatives to central registries. In some case, that may mean a slightly larger field in a protocol format, so a large random number can be used instead of a short registered number. In other cases, like name resolution, that may require a technical break-through. But we should definitely think about it! -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Central registries (was RE: Chinese IPv9)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Nathaniel == Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathaniel Christian -- Your mesage seems to presume rather Nathaniel optimistically that there can be a workable technical Nathaniel alternative to central registries. If not -- and I'm Nathaniel skeptical -- your stop digging advice might translate Nathaniel into stop improving the net. I think that there are many places where we can do without a central registries. Alas, the places that are the easiest are also the places where it matters the least. This doesn't mean stop improving. It means do so with some thought. And the places where it matters the most - allocation of prefixes for IPv4 and IPv6, are already done deals. This is why I was and I still am interested in geographically based allocation of addresses. Something that does not require any registry, such as Tony Hain's proposals, or various mutations of it. Even if they do not result in efficiencies in the routing table, I think they would go a long way to making people happy. It won't make China happy --- the last thing they want is every rice farmer to have his own /48 that he can number each of the rice grains he produces with. China wants their own central registry, IMHO. Geo-allocation would make any arguments about central registries more clear -- it would tell us which people are concerned about being on the wrong end of the scarcity stick, vs which ones want their own sticks. Nathaniel research and experiments to devise an alternative -- Nathaniel central registries will remain essential, and no amount Nathaniel of wishful thinking will eliminate the need for a Nathaniel *political* solution to the management question. This is true. Nathaniel The IETF is in the business of technical solutions, but Nathaniel that doesn't mean that there *is* a technical solution to Nathaniel every problem. Where there isn't (or might not be) it is Nathaniel our duty to make the public and politicians aware of the It is a question of constraints. Right now, central repositories have not bothered the people who have been involved -- equipment makers and ISPs. It might bother other people, but they haven't been invited to the requirements discussion. Nathaniel In short, I think it would be a mistake to declare a Nathaniel moratorium on the creation of IANA registries without Nathaniel at least a plausible theory about what kind of Nathaniel alternatives might be possible. -- Nathaniel I think that Christian actually did propose some things: should also think hard about technical alternatives to central registries. In some case, that may mean a slightly larger field in a protocol format, so a large random number can be used instead of a short registered number. In other cases, like name resolution, that may require a technical break-through. But we should definitely think about it! I think that reducing the number of IANA registries should be a goal simply because it takes IANA a lot of work to manage them. - -- ] Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser - The Simpson | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBQP1kU4qHRg3pndX9AQGeyAP9E9GPVOQ9m9BrdazY+dhai43nUETjGHBq 90+kZMr9YnsYC56YBlv9CON681JpHqU6NtszjsEhA0bZgBcNtG/uhl9wqOuQUll7 K7bCwJhda2ccuCzYH8St2OvLmwpv1FBGDeeN4cF2ryMdIISJICetsTi62vaVk1Uk 4JljjoLoeOg= =nd0Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Central registries (was RE: Chinese IPv9)
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:28:37 EDT, Michael Richardson said: Even if they do not result in efficiencies in the routing table, I think they would go a long way to making people happy. If you want to make people happy by promising technically infeasible solutions, I suggest a career in politics rather than technology. Geographically allocated addresses are a *dead* *dead* *dead* end, unless you have some new work-around for the *very real* routing table explosion issues they cause. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride - but we're the IETF, so we'll settle for a *workable* design for a new bicycle. ;) pgp2JrY016GiD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
... Why doesn't this group join hand to insure full exploitation of IPv6? based on http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=showtype=newsid=1405, i'd say that the answer to that question is implied by the following quote: China and the United States are currently the only two countries that possess root domain name analysis servers, IP address servers, independent domain names, IP addresses and MAC address sources. IPv6 is apparently being seen as just one more way in which the United States is trying to dominate the world's commerce and communications systems. The IPv9 team in China is able to justify continued government funding simply by saying that this will make China a peer of the United States. One way of reading these tea leaves is to say that ICANN hasn't been seen as truly open, truly inclusive, or truly independent. Lapdog of the US-DoC was one critic's description. Speaking as an early adopter of Vint's and Jon's philosophy of openness/inclusiveness/interoperability, it's really painful to see balkanization and to consider it inevitable. -- Paul Vixie ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Central registries (was RE: Chinese IPv9)
Paul, this IPv9 hoopla strikes me as another research project harping the nationalistic chord in order to get funding. This is not exactly news. It was a common undertone in many European research proposals in the 1980's and 1990's, and it is also a classic line in NSF or DARPA proposals. The officials in the Chinese government may fall for that line a few times, but I believe that they are smart and will eventually allocate their grants based on technical merit rather than non-technical arguments. There is however an interesting technical point behind all these discussions of number allocations. The general Internet architecture is largely decentralized, but we have accepted to rely on a few centralized functions. The obvious ones are DNS names and IP addresses, but there are many others, such as port numbers and generally the various registries held by IANA. Centralized registries are expedient, and are not a big concern when the network is small, or when the central authority is virtuous. However, the network is big and the central authority becomes a locus of power. The history text books teach us that loci of power attract politicians and politician-friendly profiteers, and the Internet does not appear to be an exception. It seems that we, the IETF community, have been complacent to centralization and have dug ourselves in a centralization hole. We may hope to get out of it by ensuring that ICANN remains in charge and remains virtuous, but that goes very much against all historic precedents. When in a hole, one should obviously first stop digging: that would mean a moratorium on the creation of IANA registries. One should also think hard about technical alternatives to central registries. In some case, that may mean a slightly larger field in a protocol format, so a large random number can be used instead of a short registered number. In other cases, like name resolution, that may require a technical break-through. But we should definitely think about it! -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
At 23:52 16/07/04, Paul Vixie wrote: One way of reading these tea leaves is to say that ICANN hasn't been seen as truly open, truly inclusive, or truly independent. Lapdog of the US-DoC was one critic's description. Speaking as an early adopter of Vint's and Jon's philosophy of openness/inclusiveness/interoperability, it's really painful to see balkanization and to consider it inevitable. Paul, I believe you believe it. And I respect this. Let please for once forget mutual teasing. The balkanization you fear, we all fear, is a result of the _kind_ of openness/inclusiveness/interoperablity of this Internet thinking. I fully accept that it is painfull to you. But please understand that there is a huge difference between equal and included. Between internationalized and multilingual. Between controlling and supported. This is the whole ccNSO story. I thing there still is a chance to avoid this balkanization. It is to jointly work on intergoverance. Of DNS, IP addressing and Spam in priority, and on financing (this is an IETF issue through a cheaper surer innovative and sustainable usage architecture). Please understand that no one wants an internet governance which has shown to be an ICANN dominance and which does not match the interapplication tremendous technical opening in services and RD. Every sovereign State and independent community fully understands what USA proposed through ICANN, and is ready to concert with it, even to acknowledge it a leading role. But no one wants to depend on it. This is the UN charter by the WSIS: to find how to do it. And this is a true and genuine response to ICANN's call to Governments. Thechnically this means exactly what ICANN ICP-3 documents calls for. Testing towards a DNS first level management where the legacy part, (or view?) can be managed by ICANN and concerted with the different countries parts, etc. This most probably means also all the innovation which has been delayed for 20 years (ex. an acceptable SiteFinder should be supported by an RFC - while several ccTLD run it). We have to chose between an intergoverned root matrix and a balkanized name space. ICP-3 adopts the right approach IMHO: to call on the IETF to discuss and control a serious testing of the possible solutions. ICANN published the conditions of such a testing: non-profit, to the benefit of the whole community, reversible, not affecting general operations. The work we carried since they published it, shown us that this testing, to be of interest, must include the testing of the societal, of the economical and of the intergovernantal aspects as well. It also shown the cost of such a test bed is financially dramatically low, but conceptually dramatically high to accept for some. - We need a multilingual multinational root matrix. - We need a geotechnological numbering plan, separating routing from addressing. IPv6.010 plan. (how could we valid a multi numbering plan system with a single plan configuration being tested). - We need a mail architecture which will outdate spam. We will necessarily have them decided by Tunis 2005. I would really prefer such a Tunnet to be a consensus rather than a balkanet. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: [..] - We need a multilingual multinational root matrix. instead I think we're going to be getting a root canal. gja ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Chinese IPv9
So, it's almost identical to IPv6. It's very interesting indication. Can you show me several clues why you think so. - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) - Mobile Platform Lab. Samsung Electronics. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:37 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Bill Manning' Subject: Re: Chinese IPv9 Tony Hain wrote: There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
At 17:48 06/07/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Hain writes: Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Think of it as E-164 on steroids. Right. Dear Steven, This looks as a well planned, polite and intelligent warning. About possible other ways to use/plan the DNS, IPv6, VoIP etc. We probably have to get used to Chinese ways. I read this as are you sure IPv6.001 numbering plan, IDNA, VoIP and ENUM are Internet Gospel?. The surprisingly agressive mail of Vint Cerf seems to show he read it that way - at least in part. But is not IANA now an ICANN function? I am sure reading comments from IETF and other mailing lists taught a lot to the IPv9's team (BTW, hello to them!) jfc ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Chinese IPv9
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Sounds like an apt description for some other IPvN efforts... :-) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
See http://james.seng.cc/node/view/235 I receive some email from friends asking me if I know of the recent IPv9 news from China. I thought I should just blog about it and point them to this entry. I heard of them first time back in 2001. The technology is developed by [1] called which translate roughly to 'Numerical Domain Name. They call it ADDA (All Digital Domain Address) and then later IPv9. (Okay, I laughed back then too so don't hold back yourself ;-) The technology as I understand can be summarise as follows: The 10 digits they refer to are phone numbers (China uses 10 digit local phone number). The idea is that you can navigate the web by using phone numbers in the browser. The technology is basically a modified DNS and the business model is to get you to registered your phone numbers with them. So it isn't really IP as you would think. But despite these, they seem pretty well connected in China and have support from Ministry of Information Industry (MII) among others. However, I have not seen any actual deployment anywhere. Lots of press release but thats about it. ps: There is a article in Sina.com[2] explaining the technology pretty well but it is written in Chinese. [1] http://www.em777.net/ [2] http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/w/2004-06-28/2331380918.shtml -James Seng Tony Hain wrote: Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Think of it as E-164 on steroids. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Manning Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chinese IPv9 % Complete compilation of news at http://www.ist- ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=622 % % But I guess is an hoax ? % the site seems to be missing some of the chinese language reports... :) and based on (imho) more informed sources, this is not a hoax but a real effort. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Hain writes: Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Think of it as E-164 on steroids. Right. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/ipv9_hype_dismissed/ and several postings at http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
See http://james.seng.cc/node/view/235 I receive some email from friends asking me if I know of the recent IPv9 news from China. I thought I should just blog about it and point them to this entry. I heard of them first time back in 2001. The technology is developed by [1] called which translate roughly to 'Numerical Domain Name. They call it ADDA (All Digital Domain Address) and then later IPv9. (Okay, I laughed back then too so don't hold back yourself ;-) The technology as I understand can be summarise as follows: The 10 digits they refer to are phone numbers (China uses 10 digit local phone number). The idea is that you can navigate the web by using phone numbers in the browser. The technology is basically a modified DNS and the business model is to get you to registered your phone numbers with them. So it isn't really IP as you would think. But despite these, they seem pretty well connected in China and have support from Ministry of Information Industry (MII) among others. However, I have not seen any actual deployment anywhere. Lots of press release but thats about it. ps: There is a article in Sina.com[2] explaining the technology pretty well but it is written in Chinese. [1] http://www.em777.net/ [2] http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/w/2004-06-28/2331380918.shtml -James Seng Tony Hain wrote: Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Think of it as E-164 on steroids. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Manning Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chinese IPv9 % Complete compilation of news at http://www.ist- ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=622 % % But I guess is an hoax ? % the site seems to be missing some of the chinese language reports... :) and based on (imho) more informed sources, this is not a hoax but a real effort. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Chinese IPv9
From: Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. I think we still have many areas within IPv6 that need more researches and concentration. Why doesn't this group join hand to insure full exploitation of IPv6? In my opinion, I don't think whether China or the rest of World Internet community needs more address space than that provided by IPv6 at this time, as per their school of thought. As far as I know even China has not yet full exploit IPv6. Mushi. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
Tony Hain wrote: There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. So, it's almost identical to IPv6. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Chinese IPv9
Hi, a german computer magazine reported that China is developing their own IP address scheme as IPv9 ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/48859 ) in order to improve security (probably spelled: censorship). They cite http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/05/content_1572719.htm It is to be used inside China, and they will have routers as gateways to ipv4 and ipv6 and the borders of China (obviously not letting everything pass through). Does anyone know details about this protocol? What's the IETF's opinion (if IETF does have anything like an IETF's opinion) about such an effort? regards Hadmut ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Chinese IPv9
See also: http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=showtype=newsid=1405 Google gives about 4000 hits for IPv9. Including of course RFC 1606 :-) Gordon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Chinese IPv9 Hi, a german computer magazine reported that China is developing their own IP address scheme as IPv9 ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/48859 ) in order to improve security (probably spelled: censorship). They cite http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/05/content_1572719.htm It is to be used inside China, and they will have routers as gateways to ipv4 and ipv6 and the borders of China (obviously not letting everything pass through). Does anyone know details about this protocol? What's the IETF's opinion (if IETF does have anything like an IETF's opinion) about such an effort? regards Hadmut ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ writes: Complete compilation of news at http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=622 But I guess is an hoax ? Or the revenge of J*m Fl*mm*ng? Mike, 4 is to 6 as 6 is to 9? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: RE: Chinese IPv9 See also: http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=showtype=newsid=1405 Google gives about 4000 hits for IPv9. Including of course RFC 1606 :-) Gordon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Chinese IPv9 Hi, a german computer magazine reported that China is developing their own IP address scheme as IPv9 ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/48859 ) in order to improve security (probably spelled: censorship). They cite http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/05/content_1572719.htm It is to be used inside China, and they will have routers as gateways to ipv4 and ipv6 and the borders of China (obviously not letting everything pass through). Does anyone know details about this protocol? What's the IETF's opinion (if IETF does have anything like an IETF's opinion) about such an effort? regards Hadmut ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Chinese IPv9
% Complete compilation of news at http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=622 % % But I guess is an hoax ? % the site seems to be missing some of the chinese language reports... :) and based on (imho) more informed sources, this is not a hoax but a real effort. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Chinese IPv9
Sitting here in Seoul, Janet Sun (BII) said this is self-promotion of a single researcher looking to improve his funding. There is technical content, but no business content and the service providers are ignoring it as a waste of time. Think of it as E-164 on steroids. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Manning Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chinese IPv9 % Complete compilation of news at http://www.ist- ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=622 % % But I guess is an hoax ? % the site seems to be missing some of the chinese language reports... :) and based on (imho) more informed sources, this is not a hoax but a real effort. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
