Hi, Please keep Jim Fleming in Cc: in threads initiated by Mr. Fleming. That way our filters have better chance of "storing" these threads to where they belong to.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, ryan elson wrote: > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
