I also think 2015 is very optimistic for some players. Specifically cellphone
providers that provide data access over for example 3G or 4G. The growth is so
fast that the block allocations from the RIRs are hard to compute.
I helped one at the last RIPE meeting in Prague, and then will now get a
Total of 44 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 28 00:53:06 EDT 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
6.82% |3 | 7.73% |21924 | s...@resistor.net
6.82% |3 | 4.57% |12972 | t...@americafree
As native IPv6 connections are compared more and more with IPv4 NAT:ed
connections, I think this will go quicker than what people think. Note that
most of the difference between the protocols are features and operational
experiences the ISPs have. For the end user...how much difference is there
In message <20100527205219.gw5...@mip.a.org>, Ofer Inbar writes:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
> > (objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
> > (which is not so easy to predict, but 2015 is a popul
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The major problem with the story is that it confounds IANA runout
> (objectively predicted for 2011) with when ISPs run out of IPv4 space
> (which is not so easy to predict, but 2015 is a popular estimate). The
> rest is pretty good for a story in the non-technical media
Hi Dan,
Thanks for reviewing this document. Responding to your main point:
The need to correlate the client's EAP and IKE identity is not new to
this protocol. It has to be done in exactly the same manner, for exactly
the same reasons, in today's IKEv2. This is what IKEv2-bis says about it:
2015 seems awfully optimistic. I wouldn't want to be the poor soul responsible
for their ISP network who built a transition plan based on a 2015 depletion and
then realized I was wrong by a few years.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org]
FYI, BBC scooped the story on 11 May, and had a story on the topic last
September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10105978.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8227117.stm
On May 27, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/27/internet.crunch.2012/
David Conrad wrote:
>
> and this quote:
>
> "The internet as we know it will no longer be able to grow,"
This means "no more 'new kids' on the block", they will
have to "sublicense" from existing "kids".
>
> IPv4 free pool runout simply means connecting to the Internet
> is going to get more e
On May 27, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>> I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
>> expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
>> practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with D
On 2010-05-28 02:44, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
> expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
> practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
> at least have extensive experience in these
> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre writes:
Peter> On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've
>> brought up in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph
Peter> I proposed:
Peter>Although the group will se
I guess my point was more that this article actually quotes a *real*
expert rather than someone we've never heard of --- a more common
practice for the press. Whether or not you agree with Daniel, he does
at least have extensive experience in these matters.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publi
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not on a par with *IPv4*
networks and services.
Apologies.
Steve
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula wrote:
>
>
> On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker wrote:
> I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging t
On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker wrote:
> I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message
> across. IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address
> space will increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the
> IPv6 space. IPv6 network
I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message across.
IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address space will
increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the IPv6 space.
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not yet
> From: Ole Jacobsen
> this story was written by someone with a clue.
Not really. A high marketing FUD / technical content ratio.
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 27 May 2010, at 14:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Is that the Matt Ford who works for ISOC or somebody else?
>
The latter.
> The person quoted is well-known, so that makes me think this story was
> written by someone with a clue.
>
No comment ;)
Mat
___
Is that the Matt Ford who works for ISOC or somebody else?
The person quoted is well-known, so that makes me think this story was
written by someone with a clue.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-46
All;
I've not had any feedback on these dates. Surely there must be some
conflicts you could identify.
Thanks
Ray
On May 18, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All;
The IAOC proposes the following IETF meeting dates for the years
2014 through 2017 and requests your feedback before
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/27/internet.crunch.2012/index.html?hpt=T2
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On May 27, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 25 mei 2010, at 20:17, todd glassey wrote:
The IETF does NOT own the underlying license rights to TCP/IP in
ANY WAY.
For the record TCP/IP actually probably still belongs to the US
Government as it was originally produced under a
On 25 mei 2010, at 20:17, todd glassey wrote:
> The IETF does NOT own the underlying license rights to TCP/IP in ANY WAY.
> For the record TCP/IP actually probably still belongs to the US
> Government as it was originally produced under a Department of Defense
> contract with BB&N about 40 years
23 matches
Mail list logo
