Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Paul Robinson
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:29:24PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote: > You will never hear a consumer demanding IPv6; that is technology plumbing. > The most they will demand is an app that only works because IPv6 provides > direct access between endpoint peers. You won't hear ISP's demanding IPv6 But that

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Tim Chown
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:36:07AM +, Paul Robinson wrote: > > But that app has to be something particularly splendid. And in Europe at > least, NAT is not as prevalent as some think it is. It is prevalent wherever there is broadband. And that is where (with the extra bandwidth and always-o

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Paul Robinson
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 09:36:07AM +, Paul Robinson wrote: > Are you suggesting then, that all RFCs based on IPv6 should be... stopped? That's what happens when you write e-mails and then don't check them before sending them... s/IPv6/IPv4 - obviously. :-) -- Paul Robinson

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Tim Chown
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:13:02PM +, Paul Robinson wrote: > > IPv6 will not take off any time soon because neither the end-user nor the > service provider sees the need. The moment AOL, Wanadoo, Tiscali, World > Online et al shout out "we *need* IPv6" it will happen. Quickly. IPv6 is takin

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 13-jan-04, at 10:36, Paul Robinson wrote: Continuing work on IPv4 only creates the illusion that it is a viable protocol for application developers to rely on for future income. Are you suggesting then, that all RFCs based on IPv6 should be... stopped? I think that one should read IPv4... B

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Paul Robinson
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:30:05AM +, Tim Chown wrote: > It is prevalent wherever there is broadband. And that is where (with the > extra bandwidth and always-on) connectivity into the network is desirable. Not around me it isn't. In the UK, even with cable modem providers, I have non-NAT -

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Tim Chown
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:21:33AM +, Paul Robinson wrote: > > Not around me it isn't. In the UK, even with cable modem providers, I have > non-NAT - as they are known in the European ISP industry "RIPE addresses" - > and although I've installed NAT myself to enable quick and easy WiFi acces

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Randall R. Stewart (home)
Paul Robinson wrote: I think if we say "From the middle of next year, no more IPv4 RFCs or drafts please", then vendors and application developers will have to sit up and take notice. Remember, the protocols take between 6-36 months to be deployed for real, so what we'd actually be saying is "w

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Nathaniel Borenstein
I'm sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to be lured into another exchange in this thread, but I can't help it... On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote: Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic blacklists and run his systems there. In other w

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Paul Robinson
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:43:43AM -0600, Randall R. Stewart (home) wrote: > Something about this thread confuses me :-0 Now maybe it > is just me having my head down in the sand.. I work in the > transport area mainly and last I checked: > > 1) TCP/SCTP and UDP all run over IPv6, in fact SCTP >

RE: dire outlook on internet and NAT

2004-01-13 Thread Soliman Hesham
> Admittedly I can't remember where I read it, but I've come across > a suggestion that enterprise networks adopting IPv6 is likely to > happen before ISPs provide it in any big way, as enterprise > networks have more to gain from the technology (well, possibly, > assuming they can be convin

Your all complaining about NAT mostly

2004-01-13 Thread Dan Kolis
I'm making a product from scratch shortly and think the tide has turned to support IPv6 as much as possible. I haven't looked. Are Docsis Cable modems 2.0 IPv6 aware? How about MS operating systems? If ISP's and cable ops didn't ration fixed IP's NAT wouldn't be so popular. Its a way to evade an c

Re: Your all complaining about NAT mostly

2004-01-13 Thread Dan Kolis
>Actually, I'm told by ISP people that they don't make money off their address >charges, that they basically just cover their own costs. >Noel Bell Canada here charges $10 or so for a few fixed IP's per month. They are bought for $0.60 US as a one time cost. A pretty "good cover". Regs, Dan Da

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread J. Noel Chiappa
> From: Paul Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > of course, if after a couple of years it isn't working, there is nothing > stopping the IETF rescinding, and supporting IPv4 once more due to > "customer pressures". :-) Hello? That's where we are *now*. May I remind you that IPv6 has be

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 13-jan-04, at 15:39, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > of course, if after a couple of years it isn't working, there is > nothing stopping the IETF rescinding, and supporting IPv4 once > more due to "customer pressures". :-) Hello? That's where we are *now*. May I remind you that IPv6 has

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread jfcm
At 07:37 13/01/04, Joe Abley wrote: The operational cost of supporting both v4 and v6 from the network perspective not great, based on our experience (although the support load for v6 clients to content hosted in our network is currently much lower than for v4 clients, as you'd expect). I'd be

10 Years

2004-01-13 Thread Dan Kolis
>Anyway, the point is that successful networking technologies don't take 10 >years to succeed. They either catch on, or they don't, and after 10 years >this one has not caught on. Ho boy. Good point there. Its like "boy oh boy! POP3 is dead use IMAP". blablabla IPv6 oddly though is sort of a hmmm

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Hayriye Altunbasak
Just a small comment: Should not you first investigate the reason why IPv6 is not successful in terms of deployment (yet)? So that, we won't make the same mistakes if the world decides to sth else At 09:39 AM 1/13/2004 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Paul Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > > Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic > > blacklists and run his systems there. > > In other words, because some ISP with whom he has NO relationship has > deemed his own ISP spam-friendly, he should abandon

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Nathaniel Borenstein
On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote: You might be ignorant instead of dishonest. How very kind of you to consider two possibilities, thank you. Are you calling me and those who point out that some blacklists detect 70-90% of spam with false positive rates below 1%

Re: [isdf] Re: www.internetforce.org

2004-01-13 Thread Wawa Ngenge
Thank you. This does answer the question, and is a good example of how to approach questions in a societal forum like ISDF where even rhetorical questions may hide a cry for information. Once again, thank you. w On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, 08 January, 2004 12:5

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Michel Py
> J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > Anyway, the point is that successful networking > technologies don't take 10 years to succeed. They > either catch on, or they don't, and after 10 > years this one has not caught on. And as of the DoD requirements, those of us that are old enough will remember the ADA la

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Mike S
At 06:41 PM 1/9/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote... >Could you point to significant amounts of real mail, as opposed to >theoretical examples, that might reasonably have consider legitimate >by its targets but that was rejected as the result of a MAPS RBL >listing? Note that the validity of mail is de

Re: [isdf] Re: www.internetforce.org

2004-01-13 Thread Wawa Ngenge
I suspect that any approach that was chosen was the result of negotiations and discussions among those who took part in the discussion at that time. Any solution would raise questions in a societal setting, since unanimity is not the norm in a democratic process. The RFC process has extended s

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Like it or not, the IETF must stop wasting time and effort building new > structures on a crumbling framework. I agree completely. Now, can we all agree that almost 10 years after it was formally adopted by the IETF, IPv6 is has clearly not

Re: dire outlook on internet and NAT

2004-01-13 Thread Nathaniel Borenstein
Pardon me if I'm missing something obvious here, but couldn't one just use either XMPP or Simple for presence, associate your "server name" with a Jabber/Simple ID, and automatically have your "server" findable via these general presence protocols? Why isn't that a reasonable approach to peer

Re: [isdf] Re: www.internetforce.org

2004-01-13 Thread veni markovski
Dear Wawa, John, and colleagues, Talking about approaching questions in a societal forum like the ISDF... I am following your discussion but don't feel certain I should write to the IETF mailing list, so I will only respond in the list where I am subscribed - the ISDF. veni At 19:09 09.1.2004 '

Re: Visa for South Korea

2004-01-13 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Ken" == Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> What I'm really looking for is some form of official >>> government communication on the subject (unless of course the >>> hosts are the ones who are manning the passport control desks >>> at the airport). >>> >>

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Mike S
At 06:50 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote... >Instead of paying the extra cost to hire an ISP that cares >enough to not have spamming customers, people complain about the evils >of blacklists. Feh. Once again with the incorrect assumptions. I don't spam. I would preferentially route email dir

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Mike S
At 10:45 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote... >Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic >blacklists and run his systems there. Proven wrong, you now change your argument to one of trying to rationalize interference with legitimate email, and attempting to place the b

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You seem to have missed the point. ... You will never hear a consumer > demanding IPv6 .. You won't hear ISP's demanding IPv6 unless their > customers are demanding apps that run over IPv6 (even then the consumer > is more likely to use

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Mike S
At 10:45 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote... >Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic >blacklists and run his systems there. Proven wrong, Vernon now changes his tack to one of trying to rationalize interference with legitimate email and attempting to place the bur

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You might be ignorant instead of dishonest. > > How very kind of you to consider two possibilities, thank you. My original words that you felt labelled you dishonest explicitly included that possibility. Most people have strong opinions about

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Michael Thomas
Noel Chiappa writes: > Now, can we all agree that almost 10 years after it was formally adopted by > the IETF, IPv6 is has clearly not succeeded in becoming the ubiquitous > replacement for IPv4, and needs to be moved to "Historic", so we can turn our > energy and attention to things that *will

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Michel Py
> Hayriye Altunbasak wrote: > Should not you first investigate the reason why > IPv6 is not successful in terms of deployment > (yet)? So that, we won't make the same mistakes > if the world decides to sth else These reasons are well-known and two-fold: 1. It's an investment without any fores

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread John C Klensin
--On Tuesday, 13 January, 2004 15:41 +0100 jfcm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gentlemen, let agree IETF is lacking formal interfaces with the real world of users and the real world of operators. John Klensin's official participation to the ICANN BoD is a first good step towards formal links with

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said: > As I said, fascist. Godwin. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:23:10 PST, Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > And as of the DoD requirements, those of us that are old enough will > remember the ADA language. GOSIP. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Pekka Savola
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > The upgrade path (replace the entire internet layer in one fell swoop) IPv6 > adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different. Exactly. As we have been saying for years not, we must aim for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6, not repl

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Michel Py
> Pekka Savola > Exactly. As we have been saying for years not, > we must aim for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6, > not replacing IPv4 with IPv6. IPv6 is currently not worth the price of dual-stack, which is the very reason it is not being deployed. As of transition mechanisms, they're not good en

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Pekka Savola
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > > The upgrade path (replace the entire internet layer in one fell swoop) IPv6 > > adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different. > > Exactly. As we have been saying for years not, we

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Eric A. Hall
On 1/12/2004 9:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > IPv6's only hope of some modest level of deployment is, as the latter > part of your message points out, as the substrate for some hot > application(s). Somehow I doubt anything the IETF does or does not do > is going to have any affect on whether or no

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Pekka Savola
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote: > IPv6 is currently not worth the price of dual-stack, which is the very > reason it is not being deployed. Some think it's worth the price. In many cases, the price (in terms of money, at least) is zero. In any case, the users are given the opportunity to

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Tony Hain
Noel Chiappa wrote: > ... > IPv6 simply isn't going to get deployed "as a replacement for IPv4". It's > just > not enough better to make it worth switching - and you can flame all day > about > how NAT's are preventing deployment of new applications, but I can't run > an > SMTP or HTTP server in my

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Paul Hoffman / IMC
At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said: > As I said, fascist. Godwin. Valdis, you have confused two protocols that produced similar results but used different underlying transports and different signalling. --Paul

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Dan Kolis
>Yup, it needs a killer app or feature. Bigger address space was that >feature, but one made moot by NATs. VoIP and multimedia via SIP without having a resident network engineer in your attic. Enough said? Dan

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Eric A. Hall
On 1/13/2004 1:06 PM, Dan Kolis wrote: >>Yup, it needs a killer app or feature. Bigger address space was that >>feature, but one made moot by NATs. > > VoIP and multimedia via SIP without having a resident network engineer in > your attic. > Enough said? "in your attic" implies end-user benefi

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Joe Touch
Eric A. Hall wrote: On 1/12/2004 9:03 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: IPv6's only hope of some modest level of deployment is, as the latter part of your message points out, as the substrate for some hot application(s). Somehow I doubt anything the IETF does or does not do is going to have any affect o

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Michel Py
Tony, > Tony Hain wrote > Like it or not, we are at the end of the IPV4 road I think that's where you missed it. We are not. The truth is that the end of the IPv4 road is in sight; how far away we don't really know, as looking through the NAT binoculars does not seem to make it closer. How fast w

Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx

2004-01-13 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:46:17 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said: > > > > > As I said, fascist. > > > >Godwin. > > Valdis, you have confused two protocols tha

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Eric A. Hall
On 1/13/2004 1:24 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Eric A. Hall wrote: > Other than conserving addresses, NAT "features" are basically poison > resold as bread. Heck, I don't even like the conservation feature. Misguided allocation policies created a false demand. We would have been better off to run o

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread John C Klensin
--On Monday, 12 January, 2004 22:03 -0500 Noel Chiappa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... IPv6 simply isn't going to get deployed "as a replacement for IPv4". It's just not enough better to make it worth switching - and you can flame all day about how NAT's are preventing deployment of new applicat

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Joe Touch
John C Klensin wrote: Noel, I'm slightly more optimistic along at least two other dimensions... ... (2) The "no servers unless you pay business rates", and its close relative, "you don't get to run VPNs, or use your own email address rather than ours" nonsense you and many others are experienc

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread grenville armitage
"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote: [..] > (Yes, I know, "the support situation has improved and we expect wide-scale > deployment in the next year" - I think I've heard that same mantra every year > for the last N years. I really ought to go back through my email folders and > create a web page of I

RE: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > (1) As others have pointed out, the knowledge/skill level of a > typical ISP seems to be on a rapid downslope with no end in > sight. ... > ... > * The difference between those "business rates" and > whatever you are paying are most

Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

2004-01-13 Thread jfcm
At 18:39 13/01/04, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, 13 January, 2004 15:41 +0100 jfcm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gentlemen, let agree IETF is lacking formal interfaces with the real world of users and the real world of operators. John Klensin's official participation to the ICANN BoD is a fir

Fwd: Re: Visa for IETF meeting

2004-01-13 Thread Gene Gaines
Email below is from Mr. Sang Yoo, in the visa office of the Korean consulate in Washington DC. It should put to rest the question of visas for the upcoming IETF meeting in Seoul. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a forwarded message From: ¹Ì±¹ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dat