Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a newbox was
to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic.
But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic.
At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
Let's assume ... that a large part of
Geoff Huston wrote:
At 11:04 PM 17/11/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I have some comments on Section 5.3 of the IASA BCP, Other ISOC
Support.
The first paragraph of this section says:
Other ISOC support shall be based on the budget process as specified
in Section 6. ISOC will deposit the
Fred Baker wrote:
At 10:15 PM 11/17/04 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The effect of section 5, if I am reading it correctly, is to transfer
these budgetary bumps and grinds to the IASA rather than allowing the
ISOC to help out, making oops, we're low on cash something that has
to be
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address
space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think
great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a
On Nov 18 2004, at 10:26 Uhr, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
if there is no hassle like [...] paying for this and that
I'm a bit afraid there are players in this game that won't let us
completely eliminate that hassle.
Obviously, a situation where a /48 can only be obtained at business
rates leads
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Wrote [18 November 2004 18:08]
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring
v6 address
space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is
what we
From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the we don't need to change from v4, ever attitude is simply
absurd.
Ahem. Let's go to the tape:
if life gives you lemons, you can either sit around with a sour
look on your face, or make lemonade. NAT's make me look sour too,
Date:Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Not even my powers of pithy commentary can scale the heights needed to
| adequately comment on the fact that we've now consumed more than twice
|
On 11/17/2004 9:02 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
therefore after a middle state of perhaps five more years
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else. Usually
Isn't it more productive than beating the dead horse?
If reasons are recognized, it will be useful information to
design alternatives, maybe by alternative standardization
bodies.
Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf
At 11:21 AM 11/18/04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth
ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it
to be transparent and explicit.
Actually, that's the opposite of what I was pointing out. I was pointing
out
yes, it goes both ways - I thought I indicated that
Brian
Fred Baker wrote:
At 11:21 AM 11/18/04 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth
ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it
to be transparent and explicit.
This relates to my previous comment in response to Geoff. It's
all about how to smooth cash flow, given that both income and
outgoings are bumpy.
If, in practice, some help from the IASA account is needed to smooth
ISOC's cash flow temporarily, that is fine by me but I'd like it
to be
It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years,
we are doing OK.
It is always good to learn from history, of course.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one
day, and for all days I stayed there.
Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the
deposit (one day), but did not take that
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years,
we are doing OK.
It is always good to learn from history, of course.
That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15
years,
given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the
relative ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses
or v6 tunnels in v4 campuses, there is no incentive to do nat/v4 any
more, and precious little incentive to do nonat/v4.
*I* can get v6 connectivity easily
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else.
i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger than
all of ipv4. geoff
On 11/18/2004 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i am directly aware of latent address space needs that are 50X larger
than all of ipv4.
Me too, but the sum total of these (both now and immediately foreseeable)
is very few. I mean, I can site the corner cases too, but what does that
have to do with
On Nov 18, 2004, at 11:38, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one
day, and for all days I stayed there.
Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the
Paul Vixie wrote:
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has been with access more than anything else.
i am directly aware of latent address
Franck,
You cannot get allocations for the SOPAC countries?
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Franck Martin wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
How long have folks been predicting ~5yr windows?
forever.
Not to diminish your table or anything, but markets don't work in binary,
and the problem has
Noel,
I especially like the proof by emphaticus assertionus: It's pretty
clear by now that IPv6 is just not going to reach its stated goal -
which is to ubiquitously replace IPv4.
Reminds me of the discussion between two dinosaurs back in the Jurassic:
well, it is now apparent we are not going
The basic point seems pretty simple: the ietf seems to want a
seperate set of accounts so that iasa will have an accurate
financial picture and a degree of financial control in regards
to ietf-specific activites.
not unreasonable - why not leave the description to say just that and
leave the
Title: Converted from Rich Text
Harold,
Numbers are for losers and technologists.
Except that numbers seem to cross a number of languages better than, say, 7-bit ASCII ... YMMV.
John
___Ietf mailing list[EMAIL
At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years,
we are doing OK.
It is always good to learn from history, of course.
That's funny. I recall that when we
At 19:08 18/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, november 18, 2004 10:26:07 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The least they want to hear is relative ease of acquiring v6 address
space even least than relative ease to delpoy. This is what we think
great. This is
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 09:27:55PM +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin allegedly wrote:
At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15
years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new
routing addressing architecture.
Personally, I do not think that an IETF BCP is the correct place to
include a lot of specifics about how the accounting for the IASA
activity will be handled. I think that those details should be
worked out, and adjusted as needed, by the IAOC (in consultation with
ISOC, accountants and tax
Sorry. I made a mistake, it was 313 months ago that I started using names
made of a root, customer and host part. Robert Tréhin would know better (he
was the one with Joe Rinde to introduce root names - or TLDs). Again if
that is what you refer to. So old.
249 months ago is roughly when I
At 4:35 PM -0500 11/18/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Personally, I do not think that an IETF BCP is the correct place to
include a lot of specifics about how the accounting for the IASA
activity will be handled. I think that those details should be
worked out, and adjusted as needed, by the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
Neither of us has the required data to back this up but my impression
of the IETF attendance in the last 5+ years has been largely hardware/
software vendors, followed at a distance by service
Hi Ted,
At 2:45 PM -0800 11/18/04, Ted Hardie wrote:
That's something
that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after
all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting
fees or memberships. Expert review to make sure that we're saying what
we want
Jeff,
In terms of being inside the ISP space, I would include all of those
people who build software and hardware for ISPs such as router, switch,
firewall, etc..
My taxonomy intended to differentiate between app/host vendors and
IP-transport/router-switch vendors.
Apologies to all in my broad
At 6:40 PM -0500 11/18/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Ted,
At 2:45 PM -0800 11/18/04, Ted Hardie wrote:
That's something
that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after
all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting
fees or memberships. Expert
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries are
below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population of
less than 100,000 and when the IPv6
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries
are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries
are below
On 18 Nov 2004, at 21:05, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be
deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?
End sites get addresses from ISPs, or use 6to4, or get direct
assignments from RIRs if they qualify as operators of critical
some comments
overall this document seems quite reasonable but I think there are some
quite real problems mostly stemming from it trying to over proscribe
future arrangements. I think the document needs to articulate
philosophies but not get too deep into the details because it would
reduce the
Ted sed:
No, I consider the attorneys and accountants you mentioned in your message
to be external parties.
I must be misunderstaning you because it sounds like you are
saying that it does not make any difference if lawyers and/or
accountants say that the structure proposed in the document
is
I apologize in advance for feeding this thread, but the conversation
seems to be diverging from what I thought we had actually been
previously...
IIRC, we've semi-recently been off to the land of PCs in homes and
cell phones. I can say I was honestly dismayed that cable providers
in the
42 matches
Mail list logo
