On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:16:43PM +,
Vince Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address
space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is a wrong presentation of the ITU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote:
For instance, 212.x.y.z is known to be on one continent, and so on -
but how do you leverage that into a 212/8 routing entry?
Well, suppose we know 212/8 is used in Europe. A network that is
present in say, North America and Europe then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote:
The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
this level of
On 23-nov-04, at 6:49, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
If all active ASes did this we'd have a 400k routing table. So please
no PI in IPv6, not even for large enterprises.
Why is an ISP more worthy or PI space than a large enterprise. In
fact, ISPs are responsible for far, far more table pollution
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:32 +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Massar) wrote:
The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:16:43PM +,
Vince Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address
space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This
It would appear NANOG silently drops emails sent with Word
attachments. Here is another try:
http://www.interall.co.il/reply to RIRs.doc
-Hank
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:46:31 +0200
To: Vince Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote:
This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address
space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is not exactly what it says in
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.pdf
A quote:
The
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:17 AM
To: Vince Hoffman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP
Addresses
On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote:
Good Day,
Any one from LEVEL3 on the list please contact me off the list or if
someone has their NOC information I would greatly appreciate if you can
share it.
Regards,
--
Majid Farid
ISP Specialist
Telecom Ottawa Limited.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[P] 613.225.4631 ext 7220
[F] 613.225.0636
On 23/11/2004 9:19 AM Majid Farid wrote:
Any one from LEVEL3 on the list please contact me off the list or if
someone has their NOC information I would greatly appreciate if you can
share it.
Did you try the contact information listed at:
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi
Todd
Todd Mitchell - lists wrote:
Did you try the contact information listed at:
http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi
Or maybe get onto the inoc-dba phone system - once you are on it,
http://www.pch.net/inoc-dba/ lists both genuity and level3 inoc-dba
phone numbers that you can call.
srs
Niaz, Wajahat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Call 1877-4Level3
Do you reckon that'd work against a persistent spammer? abuse@ appears
to be a great big black hole.
--
For Sale: Apple iPod, 15 GB model, lightly used, 167 songs loaded.
The RIAA says it's worth about $25 million.
I'll let it go for $5
Of course, then, the developing countries (and, more importantly, the
countries
with large viral or spammer populations) are then faced with the question
of whether anyone will route their prefixes. Won't that make the ITU happy.
Owen
--On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:16 PM +0100 Iljitsch van
Interesting flow...who then enforces ITU rules? With what binding
authority? Better yet, let the free market run the business.
Brad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Iljitsch van
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:23:28AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Of course, then, the developing countries (and, more importantly, the
countries
with large viral or spammer populations) are then faced with the question
of whether anyone will route their prefixes. Won't that make the ITU happy.
John Curran wrote:
...
If ARIN's members direct it to provide such a service, and provide
guidance that
the fees should based initial-only and on a cost recovery, I have a lot of
faith that
it would occur...
That does, of course, presume that the operator community actually agrees
with
http://www.digitarchy.com/anycast/phcd.tgz
Will do pretty much what you want. My target was a HTTP
based service rather than DNS. Modification for UDP
health checks should be trivial.
-ansh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gere geomag
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the
thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against
something that
Yeah 877-4Level3 is going to work the best. They will put you in touch
with the abuse department. I have some of their contacts but it would be
best to call for the on-site tech.
Best Wishes,
Blake L. Smith
XtremeBandwidth.com, Inc.
949-330-6400 Office
949-606-7100 Fax
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yeah right. That's why Worldcom's frame-relay network was unusable for
about 10 days and took out part of the Chicago Board of Trade elecronic
trading system.
and to be fair it might have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes:
I'm going to try to make this my last message on this subject...
ok.
In addition to portable address space being harmful, I also believe
it's not really necessary. Renumbering client-only systems is NOT a
problem with DHCP or IPv6
22 matches
Mail list logo
