[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it ...
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as required at either end. Such addressing allows
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you know of a better way than BGP, feel free to suggest it ...
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as
Anthony G. Atkielski;
I've described variable-length addresses in the past. Essentially a
system like that of the telephone network, with addresses that can be
extended as required at either end. Such addressing allows unlimited ad
hoc extensibility at any time without upsetting any routing
Johnny Eriksson writes:
You can start designing the ASICs now. It won't be easy.
It worked with Strowger switches and crossbar mechanical exchanges; why
would it be more difficult with ASICs?
Masataka Ohta writes:
Unlimited? The limitation on public part is 20 digits.
That's just a matter of programming these days.
Ad hoc extension beyond hardware supported length
at that time will fatally hurt performance.
What hardware limits numbers to 20 digits today?
Franck said:
Well to come back to my original comment, is that IETF, IANA and ICANN
by being individual members organisations do not have the front of
ITU, which is unfortunate as the Internet is not being done in ITU.
Governments have to understand that and for that dissociate themselves
from the
Hi
One paragraph to apologize about being aggressive about the ITU. So much
comes out of them as a group that is nessessary and excellent, I'm sorry to
be critical of their proposed increased role in internet. Stuff like AC-3
sound, the WARC process, is good work. Its not the people that slow it
At 07:30 PM 12/3/2003, Dean Anderson wrote...
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,
On 06:27 04/12/03, Paul Vixie said:
there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the
internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay!
This seems untrue in terms of operations if I refer myself to the USG
relations with the nets.
This sounds like
Dear Mr. Lindqvist,
I am afraid I do not understand some of the points you try to make. I will
give basic responses, please do not hesitate to elaborate.
On 21:27 02/12/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist said:
The post KPQuest updates are a good example of what Govs do not want
anymore.
I can't make this
At 09:21 03/12/03, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I agree and realize this. However, the let's take that argument out in the
open and not hide it behind national security.
I regret such an agressiveness. I simply listed suggestions I collected to
ask warning, advise, alternative to problems
Dear Masataka,
my interest in this is national security. I see a problem with IPv6 in two
areas.
1. the 001 numbering plan as inadequate to national interests - digital
soverignty, e-territory organization, law enforcement, security and
safetey, etc. related reasons (I do not discuss their
At 10:45 AM 12/4/2003, Steve Silverman wrote...
The Internet is _in part_ an intellectual construction but so is
the telephone network.
I disagree.
It doesn't do much without a physical implementation.
Cognitive thought doesn't exist without a brain. That doesn't mean that thought is
only _in
The Internet is _in part_ an intellectual construction but so is
the telephone network. It doesn't do much without a physical
implementation.
Whatever rights you, I, or anyone else may think are
inalienable, in many parts of the world, the only rights anyone has
are what the
government allows. I'm
At 15:17 04/12/03, Mike S wrote:
Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which
the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of
reconfiguration.
Dear Mike,
I am only interested in technical issues in here. You may realize that the
very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree and realize this. However, the let's take that argument out
in the open and not hide it behind national security.
I regret such an agressiveness. I simply listed suggestions I
collected to ask warning, advise, alternative to problems
--On Thursday, 04 December, 2003 18:29 +0100 jfcm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Is there a technical way against spam for example? All I see
here is please, call in the lawBut law is not the USG
outside of the USA. Law is necessarily ITU. Because Law is
States and for 136 years States use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The post KPQuest updates are a good example of what Govs do not
want
anymore.
I can't make this sentence out. Do you mean the diminish of KPNQwest?
In that case, please explain. And before you do: I probably know more
about KPNQwest than
It always striked me that a programme as popular as BBC Click online, never showed up at an ISOC (INET) or IETF meeting, but went to meetings where the Internet is made (Internet World, CeBit,...)
Cheers
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 01:14, Dan Kolis wrote:
So... The big contracts are pulled.
Anthony G. Atkielski;
Unlimited? The limitation on public part is 20 digits.
That's just a matter of programming these days.
On the Internet these days, it is a matter of hardware.
Ad hoc extension beyond hardware supported length
at that time will fatally hurt performance.
What hardware
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 01:05, jfcm wrote:
On 06:27 04/12/03, Paul Vixie said:
there's plenty to worry about wrt the big boys controlling things, but the
internet is definitionally and constitutionally uncontrollable. yay!
This seems untrue in terms of operations if I refer myself to the USG
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 09:00, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The post KPQuest updates are a good example of what Govs do not
want
anymore.
I can't make this sentence out. Do you mean the diminish of KPNQwest?
In that case, please explain. And
John C Klensin;
ITU-T is quite insistent that they make _Recommendations_ only.
W.r.t. enforcement, ITU-T makes standards, regardless of whether
it is called recommendations or requests for comments.
Interpretation and enforcement is up to each individual government.
No. WTO agreement helps a
jfcm;
Dear Masataka,
my interest in this is national security. I see a problem with IPv6 in
two areas.
Only two?
IPv6 contains a lot of unnecessary features, such as stateless
autoconfiguration, and is too complex to be deployable.
Comments welcome.
As it is too complex, it naturally has a lot
Almost perfect : they averaged the US and the EU propositions (32 and 64
bytes) for the data = 48 bytes, and then added 5 bytes for the header = 48
+ 5 = 53 bytes.
E.T.
=-Original Message-
=From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
=Behalf Of Dan Kolis
=Sent: jeudi 4 décembre
Mike S wrote:
[..]
Many governments have over time attempted to control thought and personal speech,
and none has been successful for any extended period of time.
OT, but in my more cynical moments i'm inclined to think govt (societal) control of
thought and speech has been far more
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 12:16, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:44:00AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
There are now organisations installing root servers in all countries
that want one. If you are operating a ccTLD, you may want have sitting
next to your machines a root server,
On 5 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
my experience differs. when a root name server is present it has to be
fully fleshed out, because if it isn't working properly or it falls over
due to a ddos or if it's advertising a route but not answering queries,
then any other problem will be magnified a
Paul,
1. all this presumes that the root file is in good shape and has not been
tampered.
How do you know the data in the file you disseminate are not polluted
or changed?
2. where is the best documentation - from your own point of veiw - of a
root server organization.
thank you
jfc
At
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 15:32, jfcm wrote:
Paul,
1. all this presumes that the root file is in good shape and has not been
tampered.
How do you know the data in the file you disseminate are not polluted
or changed?
Because somebody will complain... ;)
Franck Martin
[EMAIL
Masataka Ohta writes:
On the Internet these days, it is a matter of hardware.
And the hardware is a matter of firmware.
--On Friday, 05 December, 2003 15:29 +1200 Franck Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While talking about HTML in e-mail messages that consume a lot
of bandwidth...
Why SMTP servers do not negotiate to send an 8bit compressed
stream between themselves. The same way HTTP negotiate a
compressed stream
32 matches
Mail list logo
