Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 03/07/05, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Already entire nations are dropping ICANN. China for one and now
Turkey.
You know something .. the turks, or at least one minor government /
industry department there, seem to have been drinking
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
This keeps coming up in each
On 03/07/05, Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I cant.
You dont do bussiness with them?
But you are wearing their shoes.
And who controls ICANN? I am afraid they are out of control - reading
their mailing lists and
Peter Dambier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
European ISPs and Asian ISPs do change to the Public-Root because their
customers need to send emails to each other. Curiously enough their is
no SPAM on Public-Root email addresses. I thought the spammers were
located in Asia and Europe only?
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:15:10 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
People will want IPv9 with total gouvernement control. Especially in China
and the US.
The fact that something is neither available nor technically feasible has
never stopped people from wanting it...
pgpoYyu6HV5ZU.pgp
Description: PGP
On Jul 3, 2005, at 5:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:15:10 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
People will want IPv9 with total gouvernement control. Especially
in China
and the US.
The fact that something is neither available nor technically
feasible has
never stopped
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:16:57 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Jul 3, 2005, at 5:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:15:10 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
People will want IPv9 with total gouvernement control. Especially
in China
and the US.
The fact that something is
On Jul 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:44:56 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I can't help it if they disregard RFC2826...
we talk about controlling nameservers right?
So why should they care
On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
Good luck finding an implementation. The v6 designers have
recommended
against it due to the sheer *stupidity* of the concept, and as a
result, I
know of no extant implementations of NAT on v6 out there.
This is no market. Stunningly
At 11:28 AM 7/3/2005, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:44:56 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I can't help it if they disregard RFC2826...
ICANN does not want them.
They dont want ICANN either.
This doesn't change the
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:50:03AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
the problem is that there are really no fundamentally new great
concepts. so this is likely doomed to be yet another second
system syndrome.
And the world demand for computers might someday approach 100?
How do we *know* there are
On 07/03/05, Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ...
unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can
really know what it'll do. At what point do entirely
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:41:23 EDT, Ted Fischer said:
Go read this: http://65.246.255.51/rfc/rfc3675.txt
And ask yourself (a) why did that URL work at all, and (b) whether censoring
via top-level domain is likely to work.
As an interesting side note, my e-mail client (Eudora) helpfully
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:43:40 EDT, Jay R. Ashworth said:
And the world demand for computers might someday approach 100?
To be fair to TJ Watson, please note that IBM was *already* engaged in
the production and sales of automated tabulating equipment, and when reading
his comment *in historical
Peter Dambier wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
The good thing with IPv6 is autoconfiguration. There is no need to
renumber.
With the radvd daemon running your box builds its own ip as soon as you
plug it in.
If your box is allowed then give it a global address from the radvd.
Your box does not
On Jul 3, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Peter Dambier wrote:
The good thing with IPv6 is autoconfiguration. There is no need to
renumber.
I wasn't aware IPv6 auto-configuration:
- updated s and PTRs for all possible entries DNS associated with
the old address, including the glue records
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Well, with all due respect, of *course* there isn't any 'killer site'
that is v6 only yet: the only motivation to do so at the moment, given
the proportion of v4 to v6 end-users, is *specifically* to drive v4 to
v6 conversion at the end-user level.
We need either one
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ...
unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until something's tried, none of us can
really know what
At 12:14 PM +0200 2005-07-01, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Huh, Europe is moving to IPv6? I must have been asleep at all industry
meeting in the past few month and years...
From what I've seen at the RIPE meetings, Europe is definitely
moving towards IPv6. Maybe not as fast as some parts in
At 10:01 PM -0400 2005-06-30, Todd Vierling wrote:
Um, I wasn't talking about an ISP. I was talking about the MUA with the
largest market share, and most frequently found security holes, which ships
with an OS I prefer not to name directly is possible.
There are three key pieces of the
Hi,
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d could
not be resolved either.
Our cache
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:08:39PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/03/05, Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we *know* there are no fundamentally new great concepts ...
unless we *try a lot of stuff*.
Trying stuff is good -- until
Hi,
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d could
not be resolved either.
But he DID make it more feasible and useful. And he DID throw thousands of
them away!
;)
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay
R. Ashworth
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:07 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Fundamental changes
ICANN has no right to claim that they are the authority for the namespace.
They are NOT. Also note the word PUBLIC in PUBLIC-ROOT.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joe Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; NANGO nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 03,
Hi,
Only if you wish to do all your other customers a
disfavour
by configuring your caching servers to support a
private
namespace then yes.
The problem is chinese domain name is hosted and could
be registered by people around.
So, we just have to enable
On Jul 3, 2005, at 7:36 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
ICANN has no right to claim that they are the authority for the
namespace.
They are NOT.
Horse == dead.
Also note the word PUBLIC in PUBLIC-ROOT.
My i18n must be broken. All I see is SNAKE-OIL.
-david ulevitch
-
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
ICANN has no right to claim that they are the authority for the namespace.
They are NOT. Also note the word PUBLIC in PUBLIC-ROOT.
Yeh, that's just great - PUBLIC being used in propoganda compaign to
create what appears to be private
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d could
Steve, I think that what it boils down to is how many times do you want to split
Metcalfe before it becomes self-defeating. Similar arguments have surfaced
recently due to the emergence of proprietary vertical voip applications such s
Skype. If one is appeased simplmy by communing with a fixed
30 matches
Mail list logo
