On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 22:24, wrote:
> Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... wanna score some gen-yoo-ine Rolex integers,
> cheap?
Right, because there is no reason to care about the uniqueness of
integers used on the Internet... :/
~Chris
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I highly encourage everyone who has an opinion on Internet numbering
policy to do the same.
The same goes for IETF and standards, there one doesn't have to go to
meetings at all since most work is being done on/via mailing lists openly.
--
Mikael
Owen,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Let's clarify the definition of abuse in this context. We are not talking
> about people who use their IPs to abuse the network. We are talking about
> resource recipients who use their allocations or assignments in contravention
> to the
On 08/14/2010 21:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who "sell" addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
> First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
> ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who "sell" addresses
> despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... w
On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>
> Question: Why does it cost $11 million or more per year (going to some
> $22 million per year after 2013) to run a couple of databases that are
> Internet-accessible?
Patrick - If this is a reference to ARIN, the budget is approximately
Randy Bush wrote:
>> >> John - you do not get it...
> >
> > vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
> > and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
> > which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
> > class trave
The vendor I referred to earlier that does not support IPv6 explained
this in a private meeting, not a sales pitch. We already use their
products extensively. The discussion was more to the tune of "we
developed IPv6 support but stopped including it in the firmware
releases because no one was using
> A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space
> for B and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive
> resource requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick?
maybe you should not be searching for a stick.
This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one
of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed
like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the "only oddball" pushing
the IPv6 feature requirement. I tried to explain to him that by this t
A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space for B
and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive resource
requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:k...@sizone.org]
Sent: Friday, August
> First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
> ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who "sell" addresses
> despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
this is less clear-cut than you seem to think it is. but i suspect we
will see it in court
for the embarrassing wannabe example of the month, marla and lee [0] at
the last ietf is just such a shining example. at the mic, they state
are from the arin ac and board, like it was their day job and they were
speaking fo rarin ploicy. and they propose to roll back a decade of
progress getting
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:32, Randy Bush wrote:
> when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
> flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
> steaming load that is not gonna change.
Yes, those definitions create a steaming load.
But why is it that th
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 15:25, Ken Chase wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said:
> >I know of several large providers that would stop routing such "rogue"
> space.
>
> Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non
> payment after severa
40 Acres and a Mule were promised to every slave freed in the south by
General Grant. It was later rescinded. 600 acres was promised to
non-landowning general militia soldiers after the Revolutionary war.
You're only off by ~100 years.
Andrew
On 8/14/2010 1:27 PM, Jimi Thompson wrote:
It
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:32:50PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
> > fraud.
> >
> > abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
>
> This is a F
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
> fraud.
>
> abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks who are accusing ARIN of abuse of network. With the
possible e
I think you mistake my meaning. I don't regard RA and SLAAC as a problem. I
regard their limited capabilities as a minor issue. I regard the IETF religion
that insists on preventing DHCPv6 from having a complete set of capabilities
for some form of RA protectionism to be the largest problem. Tha
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson wrote:
> It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865)
not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to
in this thread.
Joel's iPad
>
>
> On 8/14/10 11
On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote:
> It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
That was Civil War, for freed slaves. Here in NY, war of independence
veterans were given at least 100 acres each.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
> On 08/14/2010 11:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people
>> walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The
>> vendor told each, in turn, "You're the only one asking
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for
> end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
> The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal 2002-3.
>
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, "John R. Levine" wrote:
>> Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
>> folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
>> last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
>> IP
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> I wouldn't for a moment claim that IPv4 space was a way that was uniformly
> fair or wise or close to ideal. But I don't think you're going to have much
> luck imposing fairness and wisdom retroactively on people who've already got
> the s
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
IP addresses, that they were merely holding the addresses in trust for
the public they serve. .
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> > Funny!
> >
> > On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero
> > cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use
> >
On 08/14/2010 11:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people
walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The
vendor told each, in turn, "You're the only one asking for it."
I walked up to the vendor and took my turn being
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Funny!
>
> On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero
> cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use
> their allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential
> exp
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> John et al,
>
> I have read many of your articles about the need to migrate to IPv6
> and how failure to do so will impact business continuity sometime in
> the next 1 - 3 years. I've pressed our vendors to support IPv6 (note:
> keep in mind we'
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
>> the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
>> have actually been "fixed" by the RIR's.
>
> no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood
Watching people snark on mailing lists is occasionally entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing lists is usually less entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing list for 100+ posts when the things they are
snarking about were voted on by themselves is getting a little
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:23:02PM +0100, Michael Dillon wrote:
> > Shall I go on? Regardless of what you may think about whether those
> > injured folks should be entitled to the information, the fact is that
> > they are entitled to it under ARIN policy developed based on public
> > consensus. Wh
> Shall I go on? Regardless of what you may think about whether those
> injured folks should be entitled to the information, the fact is that
> they are entitled to it under ARIN policy developed based on public
> consensus. Which means you injure them by denying it.
Enough with the amateur lawyer
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:00 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> And in complete fairness - why should folks who received vast tracts
>> of addresses for little or no cost under a justified-need regime now
>> have free reign to monetize their sale?
>
> All of the real estate in my part of New York traces b
35 matches
Mail list logo
