-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On onsdag, dec 3, 2003, at 04:12 Europe/Stockholm, Franck Martin wrote:
ITU is worried like hell, because the Internet is a process that
escapes the Telcos. The telcos in most of our world are in fact
governments and governments/ITU are saying
There is also an excellent steak house just the other side of the
street, that's even skyway accessible.
And only ~$50 minimum per dinner ...
With the current number of practicing IETF vegetarians, I had assumed
this was a joke...
- Original Message -
From: Susan Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:08 AM
Subject: RE: Future IETF Meetings
There
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed. However I
wonder which kind of instant messaging you are referring to, as all
the
ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Peer-to-peer CUSeeMe stopped working for me when I installed a NAT box
at home. Now I can only do peer-to-peer
Armando,
Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed.
However I wonder which kind of instant messaging you are
referring to, as all the ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Armando L. Caro Jr.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used MSN). Sure, you can do
normal
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:15:07 PST, Michel Py said:
In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
IM, if NAT does break IM
Michel Py wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
Since we've been lacking a similar non-NAT solution,
we (ISI) built one called TetherNet, as posted earlier:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet
What is this beside a box that setups a tunnel? What's the difference
with:
See, that's the classic mistake: Everyone wants to divide the entire
address space RIGHT NOW, without any clue as to how the world will
evolve in years to come. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but it certainly
That not correct. See:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space
Where it
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed. However I
wonder which kind of instant messaging you are referring to, as all the
ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used MSN). Sure, you can do normal chatting,
but
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed.
However I wonder which kind of instant messaging you are
referring to, as all the ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Armando L. Caro Jr.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used
In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
IM, if NAT does break IM webcams I don't have a problem with it.
As of
file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
|In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
|There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
|setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
|IM, if NAT does
Bob Hinden writes:
2) For now, IANA should limit its allocation of IPv6 unicast
address space to the range of addresses that start with binary
value 001. The rest of the global unicast address space
(approximately 85% of the IPv6 address space) is reserved for future
On 3 Dec 2003, Franck Martin wrote:
ITU is worried like hell, because the Internet is a process that escapes
the Telcos. The telcos in most of our world are in fact governments and
governments/ITU are saying dealing with country names is a thing of
national sovereignty. What they most of the
Michel Py wrote:
[..]
As of
file transfer, it does not bother me either as like a lot of other
network administrators I have a problem with users sharing their office
computer files with anyone unknown on the net.
I trust you frisk all employees for CD-R/RWs, floppies and USB sticks
Dean said:
But of course, governments have the sovereign right to control the
communications of their citizens...
Dan says:
Well, I don't agree. If you believe in speech divorced from action; (ex.
Commercial speech, inciting to riot, fraud), in which speech is a component
of an act...
Just
On 3-dec-03, at 21:21, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
It was well understood that it was important to keep most of the IPv6
address space open to allow for future use.
If it were well understood, nobody would have ever been foolish enough
to suggest blowing 2^125 addresses right up front. I've
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
You seem to assume that being frugal with address
space would make it possible to use addresess that
are much smaller than 128 bits.
I assume that if we are getting by with 2^32 addresses now, we don't
need 2^93 times that many any time in the foreseeable future.
I don't mean to say I think excessive government control is a good thing.
Rather, this is a political question that ICANN/IETF/IANA has to avoid.
The ITU has avoided this studiously for decades, throughout the cold war
even. As I think you note, its just is the way it is. As the saying goes
Dean said:
There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to
ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it.
E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:19, Dan Kolis wrote:
Dean said:
There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom. Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to
ICANN or the ITU. I can think of cases were some good has come of it.
E911, for example.
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:53:57 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Maybe it's time to find a different way to route.
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it, Make sure you
do at least some back-of-envelope checks that it Does The Right Thing when
a single
Iljitsch;
We need to keep the size of the
global routing table in check, which means wasting a good deal of
address space.
That's not untrue. However, as the size of the global routing table
is limited, we don't need so much number of bits for routing.
61 bits, allowing 4 layers of routing each
I find this and a couple of other threads completely and totally fascinating. I find myself wondering who really is dialed in to what's going on and who isn't. And that includes Vint. Of all the people that stay tuned in, Vint is the one that should know.
The things that are going on are not
... just a sign of the times. And a sign that the Internet has succeeded
so well that the big boys want to control it. For their own purposes.
And they will.
to misquote john gilmore, the internet interprets control as damage and
routes around it. anything nonconsensual ends up
25 matches
Mail list logo
