At 00:49 29/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK.. change HQ computer to www.ANYTHINGBIG.com, and change enemy to
random hacker in another country. There's boxes that *have* to be visible
to the world because they provide service and connectivity to the outside
world - and you can't even hand-wave
Jefsey,
You should also entertain the hypothesis that no one has
commented on those issues/suggestions because they are have been
discussed too many times before and are inconsistent with the
visions that drive the Internet. Some of them have even been
the subject of fairly careful evaluation
John C Klensin wrote:
With regard to ICANN and its processes, I don't much like the
way a good deal of that has turned out, even while I believe
that things are gradually getting better. I lament the set of
decisions that led to the US Govt deciding that it needed to be
actively involved and to
At 05:49 PM 11/29/2003 +, Paul Robinson wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
With regard to ICANN and its processes, I don't much like the
way a good deal of that has turned out, even while I believe
that things are gradually getting better. I lament the set of
decisions that led to the US Govt
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Paul Robinson wrote:
... realistically there is only one option left for a single,
cohesive Internet to remain whilst taking into account ALL the World's
population: ICANN needs to become a UN body.
If you look at what ICANN really and truly does you will see that it
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some 20 years to go through the *current* free IPv4
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 03:15:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:06:26 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
33 bits
8,589,934,592 times as many addresses. At current burn rates, it will take
us some
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
I strongly object to your characterization of ICANN as abandoning
the operation of roots and IP address allocation. These matters have
been the subject of discussion for some time.
I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that
At 03:39 PM 11/29/2003 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
I strongly object to your characterization of ICANN as abandoning
the operation of roots and IP address allocation. These matters have
been the subject of discussion for some time.
I can't seem to
Dear John,
thank you for your comment even if it does not discuss the internet
national survival kit. I am afraid it continues a qui pro quo where we
often say the same thing but from different points of view (not vision).
Where you look from inside your technology, and me from a user's point
Dear Vint,
thank you for commenting on the Internet national survival kit issue this
way (we are one week before the last Geneva prepcom, where ICANN is
disputed in a way the survival kit may affect).
Our common goal is to help consensus, not to increase tensions.
At 19:54 29/11/03, vinton g.
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:17:41 GMT, Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The at current burn rate assumption is far from safe though...
Oh? Have any better-than-handwaving reasons to suspect the current allocation
rate will change drastically? I don't forsee the cellphone or embedded
markets taking
Michel,
The organization has 800 hosts, all behind NAT (they have PA space, NAT
is there for renumbering ease), and there is only a small fraction of
servers that have one-to-one NAT and therefore require a public IP per
host. In your average 800 hosts network (if such a thing exists) it
13 matches
Mail list logo
