Sean;
| draft-ohta-address-allocation-00.txt
While I agree with you that the current usage-based allocation
system is wrong, your draft's "Assignment Plan" (not more restricted)
proposes to continue an anti-market single-seller model for IP
addresses of both IPv4 and IPv6 flavours.
Anyone want to by a 3? :)
The value is not the number but its percived routablity.
%
% Heh.
%
% I know someone who wants to offer a class B at seven figures and for class B's
% that "sold" for 5 figures. And you say addresses have no value.
%
% Ah, nostalgia. It's so nice to revisit
Steve,
There was a similar discussion here about five years ago where some
people proposed market models for address allocation and routing.
Unfortunately, it's not in the archives.
I think it was on CIDRD, actually, no?
If anyone has this discussion archived, could
"J. Noel Chiappa" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There was a similar discussion here about five years ago where some
people proposed market models for address allocation and routing.
Unfortunately, it's not in the archives.
I think it was on
From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it was on CIDRD, actually, no?
I don't think so.
Well, it turns out that Paul Resnick's draft (which did come out as an I-D,
draft-ietf-cidrd-mktbased-alloc-00.txt) was discussed at some length on CIDRD
in February, 1996. But it
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't see how, as long as the software manufacturers ship the software
with legal disclaimers, e.g. "We are not responsible for damages ..."
sooner or later that phrase will be recognized as less valuable
than bovine feces.
(In the U.S.) It has
Hello,
We are investigating the deployment of a wireless LAN infrastructure
(IEEE 802.11) for our building and were hoping to tap into past
experiences from wireless LAN deployments at the IETF meetings. Are
there any documents online that present "guidelines" for deployment
of wireless LANs at
