The organizers of the IEEE LANOMS99 want to say THANK YOU VERY
MUCH for your attention and contribution associated with the
realization of the First IEEE LANOMS.
**
* You are very welcome to participate in the *
*
Thank you very much for SPAMMING assorted people with your email. Aside
from the SPAM, you have also included a visible distribution list with the
email.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD ATTEND YOUR OWN SYMPOSIUM AND LEARN AT LEAST **SOMETHING**
ABOUT EMAIL AND THE INTERNET.
Pathetic!
At 01:34 AM 11/29/99
Eric,
"Fleischman, Eric W" wrote:
A few questions for the list:
1) If we effectively ran out of addresses when RFC 1597 was published, has running
out of addresses hurt us in any way?
I believe so, as discussed in
draft-carpenter-transparency-04.txt
draft-ietf-iab-ntwlyrws-over-01.txt
As the original instigator of this thread, I want to thank everyone for
their assistance, as well as for the thought-provoking discussions that
have ensued. They have all been very helpful.
As a sort of follow-on question, I've been scrutinizing the delegations
listed here:
Steve Hultquist wrote:
...
I also think
that it's interesting to consider that security concerns are the other
primary reason for use of NAT.
As had been repeatedly pointed out, this is a totally bogus argument
for NAT. Filtering routers were around long before NAT, and protect
systems
At 07:02 PM 11/29/1999 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
Many of the people who have deployed NATs are responding directly to the
address scarcity (and resultant cost). If you consider that many ISPs now
have different pricing models for multiple IP addresses than they do for a
single (regardless
Yes, my ISP is charging me for my DNS entry -- a static entry made once in a
zone file, but I'm paying monthly to have a domain name! Never mind that I
don't use their mail server or Web page service or DNS server
And yes, additional IP addresses were going to cost dramatically more. NAT
Unsubsribe
Chris Sanders
SNSC
Lucent Netcare
Amsterdam
CCIE 2221
Tel: ++31 622 451552
