Re: [swinog] killer app for IPv6

2009-11-11 Diskussionsfäden Gaurab Raj Upadhaya
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Guazzoni Daniele, CH wrote:
 ROFL !
 
 Or you force sex sites to use exclusively v6.
 Although this would probably lead into some name change: istead of
 IPvSix is gonna be IPvSex...

Umm.!! or just move to New Zealand then.. :-)

- -gaurab

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkr5eEwACgkQSo7fU26F3X03lwCfUWhMVphyregZapouGbmfZCnK
kgkAoNbB9RJ+dnHOSO751yIjHADEEM8G
=Eexc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog


Re: [swinog] killer app for IPv6

2009-11-11 Diskussionsfäden Jeroen Massar
Lets keep this brief:

Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
 well, I'm not crazy to develop a new ultimate spam killer from scratch :)

http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-12

 but those groups don't seem to propose something new either. 

Wow, you where able to read the IETF, IRTF and MAAWG lists in such a
short time?

 I'm just telling that SMTP is not the right protocol for email delivery:

http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#senior-IETF-member-5

 -- why do client-to-server and server-to-server have to be the same protocol 
 on the same TCP port? These are completely different tasks with different 
 domains of control, so they have to be two different protocols.

Why would you want two different ones?

You do realize that the Internet is a network of networks, and that
there is no separation between users and server eh?

 -- there's no obligatory identity check. Well, most ISPs have SMTP 
 authentication
 for users, but on server2server path, there's none.

http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-6
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-7

 -- With wide spread of patent-free cryptography algorithms, why aren't the 
 digital certificates obligatory? 

http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-8

 ... and so on. 
 
 I just say that now it's the only chance to deploy something new, as IPv6 
 deployment is already something new. There won't be another chance for 
 ditching 
 some old rusty legacy stuff :)

http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-12


Lets say that I just suggest you start reading a lot more first ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog


Re: [swinog] killer app for IPv6

2009-11-11 Diskussionsfäden Claudio Jeker
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:27:03PM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
 Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
  some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that 
  would 
  push the ipv6 deployment forward.
 
 Errr, more addresses.
 
 Wait until there's no more v4 left.  Bang.  Killer app.
 

Oh please, I hear this argument since years and it will just not happen.
Instead of a killer app we should look for an IPv6 killer. It would make
the internet a much better place without this clumsy fat and badly
over-designed protocol and it would make an end to all this stupid threads.

-- 
:wq Claudio

___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog


Re: [swinog] killer app for IPv6

2009-11-11 Diskussionsfäden Jeroen Massar
Claudio Jeker wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:27:03PM +, Andy Davidson wrote:
 Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
 some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that 
 would 
 push the ipv6 deployment forward.
 Errr, more addresses.

 Wait until there's no more v4 left.  Bang.  Killer app.

 
 Oh please, I hear this argument since years and it will just not happen.
 Instead of a killer app we should look for an IPv6 killer. It would make
 the internet a much better place without this clumsy fat and badly
 over-designed protocol and it would make an end to all this stupid threads.

One size does not fit all

You are btw always enticed to write up a good document containing all
the 'clumsy fat' and 'bad' things and pass that to the IETF as a draft
and possibly better push it as an Informational RFC so that the next
round of IPng comes up those considerations are taken into account...

Greets,
 Jeroen




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog