Hi All,
Sorry being a bit off-topic and having a boring subject, but we really should
clean up whatever has been going on with so much spam hitting this mailing list.
NO - I am complaining about people who post things I disagree with or on topics
I have little interest in, I am tired of the
I take this back.
Spam I received was not via anybody sending to/from nanog@nanog.org but rather
directly to my subscribed e-mail address.
- Mike
On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Michael DeMan na...@deman.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry being a bit off-topic and having a boring subject, but we really
On 2014-04-24 10:29 , Michael DeMan wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry being a bit off-topic and having a boring subject, but we really should
clean up whatever has been going on with so much spam hitting this mailing
list.
NO - I am complaining about people who post things I disagree with or on
So arin is ending
no. their job is a registrar, a bookkeeping and information function.
some day they may get back to that.
randy
Well,
Sorry Bryan,
Your post is just to awful to take seriously.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
arin.So arin is ending. It doesnt stop anything. be smart 3 usd
per ip is fair if dirty. F the
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge
content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal free market, if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff,
the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband
provider. If they
* Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com [2014-04-23 21:46]:
The process for applying
for MAC addresses under the IANA OUI was regularized in RFC 5342,
since updated to and replaced by RFC 7042. See
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7042.txt. Perhaps you were trying
before RFC 5342?
very possible.
Can someone please check the NANOG mailing list Universal
Translator? I think it is broken.
At 01:54 AM 24/04/2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
arin.So
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net wrote:
Can someone please check the NANOG mailing list Universal Translator? I
think it is broken.
I think you mean a NANOG liver is broken.
-Jim P.
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
You are asking a wrong question all they care about is Where's my moneyTM
adam
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Alain Hebert aheb...@pubnix.net wrote:
Well,
Sorry Bryan,
Your post is just to awful to take seriously.
I think you mean 'too awful to take seriously'.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:16 -0400, Bryan Socha said:
Icann is the mast 8 class as real?Distribute them
Not Even Wrong -- W. Pauli
pgpvkYUXpRipf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bryan is accepting bloody Mary donations this morning.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com
Date: 04/24/2014 6:30 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net
Cc: nanog list nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Phase 4.
We just had to do something similar for space that we had acquired in an
earlier incarnation of our company which was merged/renamed and it was a
straightforward process. We just had to provide some documentation. I found
the ARIN folk easy to work with on this.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM,
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a
router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base.
Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's
customers, Cogent. Cogent
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, Bob Evans said:
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch. :)
pgpi7z4ivHaAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
Gee whiz, why
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
--Chris
Valdis, we will give you more time to read the entire post before
responding. That way you might not mislabel or misspeak as often. :-)
Bob Evans
CTO
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, Bob Evans said:
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch.
This thread pulled a good chuckle out of me... thanks guys :)
Bryan, cheers. :)
- Don
Warren Bailey 04/24/14 9:21 AM
Bryan is accepting bloody Mary donations this morning.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Jim Popovitch
Date: 04/24/2014
On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to
My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if
the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not
even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back
and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These
things take a while
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-prote
ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:15 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: The FCC
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote:
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
Wait; it should be a new type code message, so the header format/data
section can be
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 ,
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is
On 4/24/2014 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
You are confused.
I think Mr.
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:01 , Everton Marques everton.marq...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there
is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market
Might one example of what Larry is talking about be cable providers? Also
telephone companies.
They are often awarded exclusive contracts within cities.
Do regulations prohibit anyone from becoming a cable company, in addition to
capital costs and difficulty of easements?
-Kiriki Delany
On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without
The fact there are regulated monopolies does not mean regulation cannot be
used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of phrase to prove a
point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad argument. Yeah, the phrase
regulated monopoly exists, therefore monopolies can't exist without
On 4/24/2014 11:37 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The fact there are regulated monopolies does not mean regulation
cannot be used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of
phrase to prove a point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad
argument. Yeah, the phrase regulated monopoly
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
non-operational now.
In a
37 matches
Mail list logo
