On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:28:23PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce
> > will take back control of the root name servers from ICANN at some
> > point.
>
> no. they never let go of it. a change to a nameserver for an
> african cct
I received the following from a fellow forum member who happens to be living in
Germany after I posted the same story, elsewhere:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21469219
ORSN (European Open Root Server Network)
http://www.orsn.net/
The Open Root Server Network (ORSN) is worki
> Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce
> will take back control of the root name servers from ICANN at some
> point.
no. they never let go of it. a change to a nameserver for an
african cctld has to go through the us dept of commerce. they
are saving us from t
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/01/HNinternetdirectories_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/01/HNinternetdirectories_1.html
Is this operational or dross?
Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce
will take back control of the root na
Fred,
On Jun 30, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Maybe you're saying that all of the applications you can think of
run over IPv4 networks a well as IPv6, and if so you would be
correct. As someone else said earlier in the thread, the reason to
use IPv6 has to do with addresses,
Oh, y
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
What this really does is change the detection method. Instead of scanning
randomly, you sit and watch what other IP addresses the local host
communicates with (on- and off-subnet), and attack each of them. How many
degrees of separation are there really between any two u
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> >
> > This keeps coming up in each
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Maimon) [Fri 01 Jul 2005, 17:38 CEST]:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
- Privacy enhanced addresses - not tracking usage based on addresses
As if they need to keep 128 bits for the tracking to be accurate.
If everybody gets /64 then I am certain trackers will
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:28:22AM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
>
> Todd Underwood wrote:
> >where is the service that is available only on IPv6? i can't seem to
> >find it.
>
> A better question would be "What services does the competition offer
> via IPv6?" If the answer is "none" then how long
Thus spake "Joe Maimon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> >>- Not feasible scanning of subnets remotely
> >
> > eh... maybe, I'm not convinced this matters anyway.
> >
> If your argument is that it is "to hard" to scan that many addre
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
fundamentally)?
Most of the routing and security issues on todays IP4/I
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 02 Jul, 2005
No, _telephone_service_ has changed, but the POTS/PSTN is
pretty much the same as it has been for the past 20 years.
- ferg
-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And the phone network was "pretty far along to fundamentally change" -
and then it id.
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Arch
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:29:04 -0400
> From: Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:16:37PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
> > >where is the service that is available only on IPv6?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Brad Knowles
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:48 PM
> To: Peter Corlett
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ISP phishing
>
>
>
> At 12:20 PM + 2005-06-29, Peter Corlett wrote:
>
> > Sure Alic
It was suggested that I re-post my question with a more specific subject
line...
I'm in the process of building a NOC for my current employer, and I'm
interested in knowing if any folks on this list have ever worked with a
product called Unity, by Singlestep? (www.singlestep.com) If so, I'd love
> I'm skeptical about something truly new coming from this specific
> project, but I hope it comes from somewhere.
the problem is that there are really no fundamentally new great
concepts. so this is likely doomed to be yet another second
system syndrome.
randy
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
fundamentally)?
- ferg
Many people probabl
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
> >>> is never really defined in any real sense. As near a
On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:29 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from
some
fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?
tw
--David Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In fact, Fergie's later comment "... We're pretty far along in our
>current architecture to 'fundamentally' change" is actually the root of
>what I think DC is trying to get at. I think it's a very reasonable
>question to ask: Is the Internet he
At 06:29 AM 7/1/2005, you wrote:
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhea
>
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for
the
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:54:30PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> > >
> > > This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
> > > is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
> > > level of '
On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Eric Gauthier wrote:
Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many
levels.
Not that I want to throw any more fire on this, but I think the
article is
talking about National L
Well, it _is_ research, after all... :-)
- ferg
-- John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
> but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
> "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
> fundamentally)?
>From
At 9:58 AM -0500 7/1/05, John Kristoff wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emph
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:53:53 GMT
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
> but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
> "fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
> fundamentally)?
From the article it
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> >
> > This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
> > is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
> > level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for
> > the implementations
> It is about wasting taxpayers money while watching china deploy IPv9.
Though I'm not positive, my impression is that NLR currently being built not by
the NSF but by "member institutions" - which is to say by research Universities
that are a part of the Internet2 project. Because we're being
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> network that imp
Yeah, I saw that...
With all respect to Dave, and not to sound too skeptical,
but we're pretty far along in our current architecture to
"fundamentally" change, don't you think (emphasis on
fundamentally)?
- ferg
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we coul
Why not create a special taskforce to research implementing
RFC 2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
considdering the dodo or alternatively achaeopteryx (both extinct)?
It is about wasting taxpayers money while watching china deploy IPv9.
We do not need IPv6. We do not need P2P
[reply to Andre below this one]
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 20:37 -0400, Todd Underwood wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:21:33PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> > Having been in the US gov't (too) at the time of GOSIP, there were
> > three reasons why I never used it much:
> [...]
> > 3) There
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 1 21:45:49 2005 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
On Friday 01 Jul 2005 11:28 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhea
>d
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that t
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think Dave Clark is talking about something more fundamental than
> simply IPv6 and also more far reaching. Also, the experience with
> retrofitting most of IPv6's new features into IPv4 shows that it
> is good to have role mod
> > Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> > network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many
levels.
> The real work is done elsewhere. There _are_ commercial ISPs nowadays
> who have 30Gbps (30, not 3) of native IPv6 bandwidth US-EU and can
> pr
> A better question would be "What services does the competition
> offer via IPv6?" If the answer is "none" then how long will that
> situation last? What point along the adoption curve do you want
> to be?
that's simple, when it makes money, the kind that shows up on the
p/l. when will that ha
Hi,
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Todd Underwood wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:16:37PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
where is the service that is available only on IPv6? i can't seem to
find it.
You might ask yourself whether the Kame Turtle is da
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:28:31AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
I
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
network that implements a fund
Fred Baker wrote:
On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:37 PM, Todd Underwood wrote:
where is the service that is available only on IPv6? i can't seem to
find it.
In the Chinese *University*System*, there are ~320M people, and the
Chinese figured they could be really thrifty and serve them using only
72
43 matches
Mail list logo
