Well as you know, for whatever reason, certain network prefixes turn out to be the source of rather more unreliable traffic than others.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Richard Bennett <[email protected]>wrote: > Indeed, K St. think tanks were heavily involved in the Kennedy > assassination, Watergate, and 9/11. Like IPv6, it's all about the address. > > RB > > On 9/14/2010 6:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > If you have such a poor opinion of engineers, then why post here? > > In my experience, K-street think tanks provide negative value. Almost > without exception they refuse to disclose their sources of funding while > peddling talking points written for them by the people who fund them. > > > In this forum you are purporting to be a disinterested private individual > while being a paid staff member of a business that is paid to be an advocate > for a specific point of view on the subject you are posting on. > > Most people would consider that this would be an interest that required > disclosure. > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Richard Bennett <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I wonder how many people realize that X.25 was a direct descendant of >> ARPANET, and that BB&N became a leading supplier of X.25 hardware simply by >> continuing the IMP down its evolutionary path. >> >> The dialog on Internet regulation is world-wide. The EC has an open >> inquiry on it, and nations around the world are grappling with Internet >> policy as they contemplate the best means of stimulating the deployment of >> more capable infrastructure that will ultimately replace twisted pair with >> coax and fiber and replace 2G and 3G mobile with LTE. Providing wholesale >> access to the legacy twisted pair cable plant doesn't cause fiber to >> magically spring up out of the Earth and connect homes together in a >> seamless mesh. >> >> Engineers have no more intrinsic insight into network policy than >> economists have regarding network protocols; law professors are generally >> lame on both fronts. The most interesting policy work regarding the Internet >> these days comes from multi-disciplinary teams working in academe and in the >> think tanks. >> >> RB >> >> >> On 9/14/2010 2:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> On 2010-09-15 04:36, Bob Braden wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 9/14/2010 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> * Noel Chiappa: >>>>> >>>>> I actually vaguely recall discussions about the TOS field (including >>>>>> how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I can't recall very >>>>>> much of the content of the discussions. If anyone cares, some of the >>>>>> IENs which document the early meetings might say more. >>>>>> >>>>> See RFC 760, which seems remarkably up-to-date: >>>>> >>>>> A few networks offer a Stream service, whereby one can achieve a >>>>> smoother service at some cost. >>>>> >>>>> That might have been only a sideways acknowledgment of ST-II. >>>> >>> Not to mention that at the time, the great competitor for all this >>> new-fangled connectionless datagram stuff was X.25, a pay-per-connection >>> and pay-per-byte stream service. >>> >>> As PHB says, intentions back then hardly matter anyway. >>> >>> Maybe we can leave this debate to some USA local discussion list >>> where it belongs? Those of us in the economies where there is >>> competition on the local loop are not that interested. >>> >>> Brian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > > > -- > Richard Bennett > > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
