On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> AMPS, as I understand it, is required to be around until 1/1/2007, as
> mandated by tge FCC.
I think the date actually got pushed back to '08, but I've not heard
anything about requiring CDPD.
--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Scheduled to die soon, if it hasn't already. I was a second-tier CDPD
> sub, via Earthlink, until about a year ago; they took a hit to move me
> to 1xRTT,
??
AT&T doesn't use CDMA... so they wouldn't be running 1xRTT. EDGE, perhaps?
--
JustThe.net
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Michael Painter wrote:
> In case other Win users aren't aware:
>
> http://www.samspade.org/ssw/features.html
Do be aware that the WHOIS functionality is out of date - it doesn't know
to search whois.publicinterestregistry.org for .ORG domains, for example.
The source code
Actually, many naming and addressing management experts consider that the
existence of a root defines a unique namespace.
Also, the issue of authority for a namespace is a distinct and separate
issue from affection for that authority.
Cutler
At 03:52 PM 7/9/2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct)
On 09/07/05, Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The second issue with boycotting, is the false positives.
>
> No, the *point* of the boycott is the "false positives". ISPs *will* react
> when their general users find themselves unable
An interesting situation here.
Budi operates ID-CERT, and has been ccTLD manager since 1997.
APJII is the ISP association of Indonesia, have been a registrar so far.
Apparently, according to this email, they also want to be registry,
and perhaps also get NIR status, as they would like to allo
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
> I wonder, has anyone ever prepared a best practices paper of some sort
> as to what can be expected in cases of big emergencies and mass
> hysteria, for networks?
Yes, there have been several studies and papers about what happens to
networks during public e
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:52:23 CDT, "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" said:
> No public RSN that cares about its credibility will create collisions.
Ergo, ICANN doesn't care about its credibility, because it created a .BIZ.
Except that at the time, the people who had the .BIZ that got collided with
had
No William, we are talking about multiple roots, NOT
separate namespaces. There is one namespace. There cannot be
collisions. Inclusive roots do not create collisions - only ICANN
has done that so far.
There are people who have a great disagreement about how ICANN
is going about its business. Th
No one real DOS attack can create traffic, sugnificant for core routers
(except one - two worm cases when millions of computers generated random
traffic). I do not see a problem there.
All problems you are talking about are resolved in modern CPU industry,
resolved in modern servers, Router vendo
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Repeat after me - COLLISIONS ARE BAD! We all agree with that.
But you can't avoid collisions with multiple namespaces. This is
exactly why Internet needs IANA - to avoid collisions in TLD names,
used ip addresses, protocol parameters, etc.
- Original Message -
From: "Todd Vierling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse
>
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> > I'm going to dive in one more
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse
>
> I didnt realise it was that time of year again already, it feels li
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > "infrastructure at risk". Justify this *far-reaching* statement,
> > > please. Show your work.
> >
> > AlterNIC overriding .COM and .NET listings, one of the issues leading to its
> > demise. (This was done in addition to the more memorable cach
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 01:51:46PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > It's not the *root* operators that are the problem -- it's the *TLD*
> > zone operators.
>
> Oh, I can certainly agree with that; we've seen some gross abuses of TLDs
> documented in go
>From safely on the sidelines; I have a minor point to interject into
the tale. See, I've heard that OMB's official's name mentioned in
regards to some other projects -- usually prefixed by "^*&^#%@&^#$"
or similar bits.
Before you hock the kids' college fund to invest in [IPV6
supplier's IPO];
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:45:38PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Those who consider ICANN the authority would disagree, I believe those
> are the majority.
Incidentally, Steve, clearly the USDoC NTIA is *not* in that majority.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:45:38PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Still its nice to see all the old kooks still alive and well and not
> yet locked up in mental homes. I'd better do my part to feed the
> trolls i guess...
Ok, from what *I* can see, the people arguing *against* the topic are
th
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 07/09/05, Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I may believe in the principles here, mind you, but I'm far to small to
make a point. A workable net-boycott absolutely requires that action be
taken by a non-castrated 800lb gorilla.)
Boyc
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> I'm going to dive in one more time here.
>
> It's not the *root* operators that are the problem -- it's the *TLD*
> zone operators.
Oh, I can certainly agree with that; we've seen some gross abuses of TLDs
documented in gory detail right here on the N
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:14:48 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> > forget the talk of juniper t320s in the core.. you are talking about the
> > problem caused by multihoming and multihoming prefixes are not originated
> > typically by such large and exp
I didnt realise it was that time of year again already, it feels like only a
couple months since the last annual alternate root debate.
Still its nice to see all the old kooks still alive and well and not yet locked
up in mental homes. I'd better do my part to feed the trolls i guess...
On Sat
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
> > (I may believe in the principles here, mind you, but I'm far to small to
> > make a point. A workable net-boycott absolutely requires that action be
> > taken by a non-castrated 800lb gorilla.)
>
> Having lots of vocally unhappy customers == castrat
LC can hold only 20,000 ACTIVE routes., and ask central system
if it needs more., How many ACTIVE routes are used in any CORE
router?
0.1% or CORE? 2% of CORE?
Again, today it is not technical issue anymore.
- Original Message -
From:
Syed Junaid
Farooqi
To: Christoph
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 11:46:11AM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 1. Security ("man-in-the-middle").
> >
> > VPNs, SSH tunnels, etc. There are ways to solve
> > this problem.
>
> You would use a VPN or SSH tunnel to do what? That's orthogonal to D
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:23:26 CDT, "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" said:
> Please prove that Inclusive Namespace roots put name resolution at risk.
You did it yourself, a few paragraphs later...
> Please post a link or give an example. If you mean .BIZ, I would agree, it was
> hijacked, but by ICANN,
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:14:48 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> forget the talk of juniper t320s in the core.. you are talking about the
> problem
> caused by multihoming and multihoming prefixes are not originated typically
> by
> such large and expensive routers but by small cheap systems at th
intel systems can do this.
forget the talk of juniper t320s in the core.. you are talking about the
problem
caused by multihoming and multihoming prefixes are not originated typically by
such large and expensive routers but by small cheap systems at the edge.
Steve
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Alexei
On 07/09/05, Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I may believe in the principles here, mind you, but I'm far to small to
> make a point. A workable net-boycott absolutely requires that action be
> taken by a non-castrated 800lb gorilla.)
Having lots of vocally unhappy customers
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The second issue with boycotting, is the false positives.
No, the *point* of the boycott is the "false positives". ISPs *will* react
when their general users find themselves unable to send e-mail because the
entire netspace of the offending ISP is b
- Original Message -
From: "Todd Vierling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: The whole alternate-root ${STATE}horse
> So what? DNS is one of the protocols where interoperability is not just
> desirable, it's MANDATORY.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1. Security ("man-in-the-middle").
>
> VPNs, SSH tunnels, etc. There are ways to solve
> this problem.
You would use a VPN or SSH tunnel to do what? That's orthogonal to DNS
security issues, and illustrates that you haven't read DNSSEC and/or 2826
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:56:29 PDT, Alexei Roudnev said:
>
> It's chiken and egg problem. They do not have 4 Gb, because they do not need
> it_now_. techbnically it is not a problem even today.
> Small RAID systems have 1 Gb RAM easily.
>
> Line cards do not need so much memory - they can always ca
At 03:51 PM 7/7/2005, David Andersen wrote:
On Jul 7, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
I'd have to counter with "the assumption that NATs are going
away with v6 is a rather risky assumption." Or perhaps I
misunderstood your point...
There is one thi
AMPS, as I understand it, is required to be around until 1/1/2007, as
mandated by tge FCC.
Scheduled to die soon, if it hasn't already. I was a second-tier CDPD
sub, via Earthlink, until about a year ago; they took a hit to move me
to 1xRTT, because the underlying networks were scheduled
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:05:29PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Other failure modes require a full table (e.g. link failure between
> the ISP and its upstream, or some other partial withdrawal of
> connectivity).
That's absolutely correct. I've overseen this failure mode.
Consider me embarassed. :
> it is not _technical_ problem.
no, it's a human problem. some reject clue.
enough is enough.
It's chiken and egg problem. They do not have 4 Gb, because they do not need
it_now_. techbnically it is not a problem even today.
Small RAID systems have 1 Gb RAM easily.
Line cards do not need so much memory - they can always cache routing
tables. Just again - it is not _technical_ problem.
IPv
38 matches
Mail list logo
