Sean Donelan wrote:
Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all
networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts?
Erm .. the content 'belongs' to the supplier, why shouldn't they be
allowed to chose who can and can't get access to it.
The
That's a wonderful bluring of what Randy's issue was to the point of
indistinction. Yes, try to flip it. The issue is when a consumer buys
access to the Internet what do they get?
One way of tackling this is a truth in advertising defintion of what
selling access to the Internet means.
If
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Mike Leber wrote:
Certainly AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy were all walled gardens before
the Internet.
Before in the sense of before they connected to it. (not literally of
course)
+- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+
| Mike Leber
That's a wonderful bluring of what Randy's issue was to the point of
indistinction. Yes, try to flip it. The issue is when a consumer buys
access to the Internet what do they get?
for some help, see rfc 4084, though it is weak in the area of
interest.
randy
Please pardon the crossposting between ppml and nanog...
Geoff Huston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why /48 rather than /47 or /49? - alignment to nibble boundaries to
make DNS delegation easier.
It has recently come to my attention that we are in error when we
expect n[iy]bble to have the same
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i
place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc
to hold up her end of the conversation?
Historically, aunt tillie's residential telephone line was
subsidized by charging more for business lines. When you called
aunt
I think this whole debate is really funny. Back in the days, email
was content, USENET was content. Then FTP. Then IRC and the like.
Oh, eventually the Web emerged. And so on. And somehow, because
it's now movies or whatever, the rules changed.
Give me a break.
Truth is, the RBOCs
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1881303,00.asp
Apparently now all the bluster about people capable
of fixing problems with the internet without a
congressional mandate worked still.
-Henry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
in-line:
Adam Chesnutt wrote:
This whole thread is silly! It's not hard to trap and trace a suspect.
It doesn't require a Whole new generation of routers and switches
- --
That was exactly my understanding but I think it goes beyond
The 1994 law will have a devastating impact on the whole model of
technical innovation on the Internet, said John Morris, staff counsel
for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, which filed
an appeal of the rules with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia
and, if you're interested,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3924.txt
3924 Cisco Architecture for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks. F. Baker,
B. Foster, C. Sharp. October 2004. (Format: TXT=40826 bytes)
(Status:
INFORMATIONAL)
On Nov 3, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Vicky Rode wrote:
You might want
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Barak
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:18 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
snip
like to point out for the record that none of the
recent
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries.
The importance of this comes in when deciding how to lay out a routing table
in a gate array or
I was trying to get some IOS and compare a few images in FN, and found I
cisco.com was being sluggish, and FN wouldn't load at all.
Packets Pings
Hostname%Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst
...
6.
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are on eight-bit boundaries.
The importance of this comes in
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
well, /56 /48 /32 seem to have resonance but are not special in any way
Well, they are somewhat special. All of them are
whilst i'm at the mic here, ditch the idea of microassignments, just give out
a
standard /32 block ... lets not start out with ge 33 prefixes in the table
when
theres no need
Steve
there is this wonderful, apparently US phenomeon, called the
warehouse store aka
On Nov 3, 2005, at 4:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
saving the poor routing table is a laudable and worthwhile goal,
but dumping the excess into the edges, just cause its easy strikes
me as lame. a routing table slot is a slot is a slot. It holds
a /96 as
Jon Lewis wrote:
I was trying to get some IOS and compare a few images in FN, and found
I cisco.com was being sluggish, and FN wouldn't load at all.
Packets Pings
Hostname%Loss Rcv Snt Last Best
There is an opening on the NANOG Mail List Administration Panel.
According to the draft charter[1]:
... The NANOG list will be administered and minimally
moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee.
Accordingly, the Steering Committee is soliciting nominations for
this
anyone around who can do a freebsd hands-on in westin this
eve or tomorrow?
rob austein, genuine good guy and hero of the revolution,
has an antique 2ru freebsd 4.11 box in my rack in on the
18th. boot blocks are mashed, there is no vga card, and
it is not talking over the serial. so it needs
actually, no, I could compare a /48 to a class A.
...which makes the /32s-and-shorter that everybody's actually getting
double-plus-As, or what?
no, super *duper* A's.
--
Paul Vixie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
They could be possible rate-limiting it. That's why tools such as mtr
and others do not necessarily tell you the whole truth.
regards,
/virendra
Elijah Savage wrote:
Jon Lewis wrote:
I was trying to get some IOS and compare a few images in
we have it lined up for tomorrow morning. if we hit a snag,
you'll hear the rattling of my tin cup.
thanks!
randy
24 matches
Mail list logo
