it would be nice if address space were a little more free. Does it make sense to anyone that $100 is a fair price for a lousy name? IPv4 and IPv6 both be damned, the US government seems to think that it can only run tld's, the ignorant company (well this used to be the case) named internic thought it could run a monopoly from this. Both the IETF and ICANN be damned. Same with the W3C and all organisations that have been invented to make the internet. Do you know how bleak the future of the world looks right now? We are going to eventually spend more resources tearing down our little mistakes than it will take to build new things. The emphasis is not being put on good design, but rather, backwards compatability and stupid multi-platform standards. The W3C must've lacked that vision when they meddled with internet standards enough to make the job of a webdesigner something closer to rocket science since they have to learn 5 languages just to scrape by (flash, java, asp/cold fusion, COM+, html/dhtml/xml). It's completely rediculous. These organisations are supposed to make things better and instead the only thing they accomplish is to thwart future progress by not thinking of the future quite enough. So here's a thanks to the moron that pushed IPv4 to become the internet when they should have realized that the limits on address space could easily be surpassed, here's to the idiots at the w3c who can't even get browsers to support alpha transparancy, or the idiots who invented flash which has a high learning curve only because of it's poorly designed buggy interface. It is beyond me why some animations in flash require a 600mhz computer, seems a little wasteful on processing power for the limited amount of effects that are produced by it. The computers we have today are capable of so much more, why is it that the best thing we are able to do when it comes to getting new standards is shooting ourselves in the foot? You know your mistakes are going to come and bite you in the ass sooner or later. Make things dynamic enough so that they NEVER need to be changed, do not use any constants (for instance, maximum addresses) at all. I read all of what is contributed on this list, I think it is irresponsible of ipng to consider doing anything less if they want to be taken seriously. I don't take things seriously when your ip protocol is not flexible enough to adapt to different situations rather than have to tear apart an entire network just to get a new protocol on it. It's too late with IPv4, and it's too late with IPv6 it seems...your minds are already set, you don't think that however 100 billion addresses will not be all in use sometime? Is it so inconceivable? Well then I hope you enjoy bearing the responsibility of not being so much of a professional in your recommendations for the IP protocol when people are busy ripping down your networks half a decade down the road because of something that should have been properly designed. Shame on the idiots who made that mistake in the past with IPv4, shame on the idiots who are making the same mistake again.
Jim Fleming wrote: > When people use alternate TLDs, they are labeled "alt" and people > declare that those people are not connected to *THE* Internet. > The "alt people" are ridiculed for having a small share of the market. > Some people tell the "alt people" to run along and find another sand-box > to play in. This does not seem to happen with IPv6 sales people. > > It has been confirmed by IPv6 users that they are not connected to > the Internet. IPv4 systems can not talk to native IPv6 systems. It would > appear that IPv6 is some sort of "alt protocol" movement. The IPv6 > people have their own root-servers, yet, ICANN and the IETF claim > that there can only be one true-root. IPv6 sales people do not seem to > be concerned about this. IPv6 sales people also do not seem to be > concerned about the IPv6 Privacy Problem. > > While all of this is going on, IPv4 users are quite happy and can now > expand their addressing with no change required to the equipment that > connects them. The .BIZ TLD is now considered not to be "alt", it once > was. It appears that the "consensus" of the Internet community is to move > forward with the evolution of IPv4. There is a lot of room for expansion. > The "alt protocol" people appear to be determined to fragment the > Internet. > > It is unclear why ICANN and the IETF do not declare that > there is "one true protocol" along with their "one true root". > Maybe that would lead to the declaration that there is > "one true address space" ? > > Jim Fleming > http://www.IPv8.info > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 2:45 AM > Subject: ad hoc list created to discuss v6 usage measurement > > > > > I've been trying to get a bunch of statistics together on v6 usage > > growth and have found that few people are collecting serious > > statistics. I thought I'd start a small discussion on the subject -- > > accurate statistics are important to demonstrate that v6 is indeed > > deploying and that people should spend time and money on preparing and > > deploying their own networks. > > > > I've set up an ad hoc list, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to host the > > discussion. Subscribe via [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Perry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
