BIll,
On Apr 8, 2010, at 9:39 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have
RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free
for your use.
er... you misunderstand... there is no single DFZ anywhere...
John,
In the cases I'm aware of (which were some time ago), there was (to my
knowledge) no fraud involved.
Or are you indicating the mechanisms I described are in some way fraudulent?
Regards,
-drc
On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:46 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:51 PM, David Conrad
On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
If every significant router on the market supported IPv6 five years ago,We
need more of the spirit of the old days of networking when people building
UUCP, and Fidonet and IP networks did less complaining about vendors and
made things work
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, jim deleskie wrote:
Just like 640k or memory :)
But what if I said 640 petabytes will be more than anyone will ever need.
The future might prove me wrong but it probably won't happen for a long time.
That's a better
On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:25 AM, George Bonser wrote:
The point is that v6 was a bad solution to the problem.
Well, yes, but...
Rather than simply address the address depletion
problem, it also solves a lot of problems that nobody has while
creating a whole bunch more that we will have.
Not
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
If every significant router on the market supported IPv6 five years ago,
why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the
hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
Or the fact that
On Apr 1, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
I don't know what good reasons you might have to pull down the current URLs.
Because the content has changed from arbitrary ASCII text files into more
easily parseable XML and backporting to those arbitrary ASCII text files has
proven too
On Apr 2, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
You're confusing two things: URL and content. According to the announcement,
TXT files will be generated still. Why, again, must the URL change?
As Leo pointed out, a message will be displayed at the historical URL. Does
this address your
On Apr 2, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Take back all the IP space from China and give them a single /20 and tell
them to make do.
At current consumption rates, that'd buy us another year or so. Then what?
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Why isn't this on YouTube?
You'd have
Well, actually, ICANN was in Geneva specifically for the meeting, but we
weren't allowed into the room. Quite annoying, actually.
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
There were a few representatives of the Internet community at the
meeting. All five RIRs were
Why respond to an obvious troll?
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 18, 2010, at 8:46 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
Hello,
Few people actually care about nsp-sec so what exactly are you getting at?
Guillaume FORTAINE gforta...@live.com wrote:
...
On Mar 9, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Anyone have any idea how much a fully configured CRS-3 would cost?
Admittedly, my information on these topics comes from NPR these days. :-)
They said it costs ~US$90k, and that ATT was in trails.
Somehow, I'm skeptical (not of the trials,
Mark,
On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
On 05/03/2010, at 2:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
When the IPv4 free pool is exhausted, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll
quickly find that reclaiming pretty much any IPv4 space will quickly become
worth the effort.
Only to the extent
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are issued
sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per entity
remains small.
This sort of assumes Internet connectivity models of today, specifically that
most address
On Mar 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
We do?
Why do we expect this?
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Thomas Magill wrote:
The most we could achieve would be to extend IPv4 freepool lifespan
by roughly 26 days. Given the amount of effort sqeezing useful
addresses out of such a conversion would require, I proffer that
such effort is better spent moving towards IPv6
On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the
current IANA - RIRS - LIRs model resulting in a global internet which is
hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal...
I wonder who those ITU members are then?
On Feb 26, 2010, at 10:22 AM, gordon b slater wrote:
I must admit to total confusion over why they need to grab IPs from
the v6 address space? Surely they don't need the equivalent of
band-plans for IP space? Or have I missed some v6 technical point
totally?
The ITU Secretariat and a few
On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 26/02/2010 21:13, Antonio Querubin wrote:
Some googling for 'itu ipv6' turns up the following (among other things):
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx
Wow, there are some real classics in there. Anyone in need of a good
On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:57 AM, a.harrow...@gmail.com wrote:
As a matter of form, how might one check out the legitimacy of requests like
this? (No, I don't think this one is fake...)
As a start, web of trust. This one was introduced to the list by Eric
Brunner-Williams originally, a member
On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Err, no. It was introduced by (unsigned) email purporting to come from
Eric. Followed by another (unsigned) message with bank info purporting to
come from Reynold Guerrier. A bit of a difference.
True. Signed would have been
On Jan 22, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Would it make sense for the RIRs to just carve out the bad parts of
the blocks, instead of IANA? Under current policy, would reserving
bad bits make it more difficult for an RIR to get additional
allocations?
Under existing policies, there
On Jan 21, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
In the event that 1.0.0.0/8 is assigned by IANA, anoNet could
move to the next unassigned /8, though such an event is unlikely, as
1.0.0.0/8 has been reserved since September 1981.
Sounds like a non-winning strategy to me. It's just a (random)
On Dec 31, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Paul Timmins wrote:
Cool. Then you just have to figure out how to unilaterally withdraw a
resource that doesn't have a centralized automated verification system.
Taking you out of whois doesn't automatically take you out of people's BGP
tables, after all.
See
On Dec 29, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire Internet
management plane out of band so that customers have minimal ability to
interact with routing updates,
On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:16 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
we have to fix DNS so that provider-in-the-middle attacks no longer work.
(this is why in spite of its technical excellence i am not a DNSCURVE fan,
and also why in spite of its technical suckitude i'm working on DNSSEC.)
As you know, as long as
On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:42:15 -0800
As you know, as long as people rely on their ISPs for resolution
services, DNSSEC isn't going to help. Where things get really offensive
if when the ISPs _require_
Dan,
On Nov 26, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 26/11/09 07:37 -0800, David Conrad wrote:
There are folks on this list who work for ISPs which are doing
wildcards/synthesis/etc. They (or, more likely their management) can tell
you there are obvious business reasons why they do
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 08:57 25/11/2009 +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
shouting. This is all water under the bridge of course and we are
moving on;
I do not say everything is ideal now. However the RIRs are actively
working to publish a complete set of
Hi,
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Dan White wrote:
Contact ICANN/IANA and plead with them to stop assigning any more resources
to said ISP.
ICANN/IANA doesn't assign resources to ISPs.
Regards,
-drc
Ok, lets start with not breaking the functionality we have today
in IPv4. Once you get that working again we can look at new
ideas (like RA) that might have utility. Let the new stuff live/die on
it's own merits. The Internet is very good at sorting out the useful
technology from the crap.
Iljitsch,
On Oct 21, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 okt 2009, at 10:03, Andy Davidson wrote:
Support default-routing options for DHCPv6 !
This would be a big mistake. [...] It's time for this DHC stuff to reach its
final resting place.
I'm curious: are you anticipating
Mark,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
/32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
space from ARIN that are
Owen,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come much
closer.
I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in IPv6
than in IPv4.
Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're talking about a
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
My understanding is that the RIRs are doing sparse allocation, as
opposed to reserving a few bits. I could be wrong.
Last I heard, with the exception of APNIC and contrary to what they
indicated they'd do prior to IANA allocating the /12s, you
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:17 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
My understanding is that the RIRs are doing sparse allocation, as
opposed to reserving a few bits. I could be wrong.
Last I heard, with the exception of APNIC and contrary to what they
indicated
I've been trying to stay out of this discussion because it is
pointless, however as I can't help picking at scratching mosquito
bites either...
On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm perplexed. At what size address would people stop worrying about
the finite address space?
Owen,
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If people start getting /32s because some ISPs are refusing to
route /48s, then,
the RIRs are not doing their stewardship job correctly and we should
resolve
that issue.
Since when do RIRs, good stewards or not, control routing policy
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Um. How many /32s are their in IPv4? How many /32s are their in
IPv6?
Of course, that should be there in both cases. Wow.
Regards,
-drc
On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Perhaps ICANN could require registries establish a clearing-house,
where at no cost, those assigned a network would register their
intent to initiate bulk traffic, such as email, from specific
addresses.
ICANN can't require the RIRs do
Marty,
On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
The blog posting implies it:
AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions
with the most developing economies. We decided that those RIRs
On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
but the mechanism that ICANN has defined seems patently unfair.
RFC 2777 is unfair? Or are you unhappy that LACNIC and AfriNIC have
2 /8s from the least tainted pools?
On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The problem of tainted ipv4 allocations probably grows from here
since at
some point in the near future there isn't going to be much left in
terms of
clean space to allocate. We're running out of v4 addresses in case
anyone
forgot.
On May 28, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Bobby Mac wrote:
If you add enough recipients to an email, each domain within the
send line
needs to have an associated MX record.
Well, it needs to resolve to an A RR somehow, but for each domain
name, you get a different query.
DNS by default starts with
On May 5, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Look, the Ark *is* finished. It floats. It can be steered. It has
space
for everyone. The fact that some of the plumbing is a bit iffy is just
not a major issue right now; getting everybody on board is. We have
LOTS
of very clever people ready
Oddly enough, someone proposed something very much along these lines
at a couple of RIR meetings (see IPv4 Soft Landing), and in fact
used the 'driving into a brick wall' analogy. Many of the folks who
commented on that policy proposal felt it was inappropriate for RIRs
to dictate
On Apr 5, 2009, at 12:09 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 07:37:15PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
The fault has been rectified. We are still looking into the
underlying cause and what procedural changes need to be made to
prevent a repeat occurance.
Mark
Mikael,
On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Suggestion: next time you buy equipment from competing vendors,
tell the sales folk from the losing vendors that one deciding
factor was (vendor or product) IPv6 support. That (and perhaps only
that) will get their attention...
Kevin,
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
You don't have to tell the truth to the losing sales folk... :-)
Yes, I saw the smiley, but
Sigh. Perhaps there needs to be an emoticon for really joking,
really. no, really..
Ethical issues aside, giving incorrect information to
On Feb 17, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
(which was never fully
thought out -- how does a autoconfig'd device get a DNS name
associated with their address in a DNSSEC-signed world again?) and
letting network operators use DHCP with IPv6 the way they do with
IPv4.
David you
Tony,
On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
This being a list of network engineers, there is a strong bias
toward tools
that allow explicit management of the network. This is a fine
position, and
those tools need to exist. There are others that don't want, or need
to know
about
On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In otherwords ISP's need to enter the 21st century.
Yeah, those stupid, lazy, ISPs. I'm sure they're just sitting around
every day, kicking back, eating Bon Bons(tm), and thinking of all the
new and interesting ways they can burn the vast
On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Most of the time the vendors don't educate their sales force (both
the droids and the sales engineers) about IPv6 because they
themselves have made the strategic decision that IPv6 isn't
important to them (personal view).
Suggestion:
On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Aaron Glenn wrote:
so if they don't deploy IPv6 then ('extremely high growth period'),
when will they?
Hint: how many of the (say) Alexa top 1000 websites are IPv6 enabled?
Regards,
-drc
Lorell,
On Jan 25, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Lorell Hathcock wrote:
Every time I see a post like the one below on this list, I can't
help but
feel like big brother has infiltrated the list.
Someone stating the obvious implications of the lack of the Internet
operations community to address a
Jack,
On Jan 23, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
Sad fact is that there are zillions of excuses. Unfortunately I
suspect the only way we're going to make any progress on this will
be for laws to be passed (or lawsuits to be filed) that impose a
financial penalty
On Sep 22, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm not much up on DNSSEC, but don't you need to be using a resolver
that recognizes DNSSEC in order for this to be useful?
Yes, and you also need the trust anchors for the zones you want to
validate configured.
Correct, you need a
On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
Correct, you need a validating, security-aware stub resolver, or the
ISP needs to validate the records for you.
That would defeat the entire purpose of using DNSSEC. In order for
DNSSEC to actually provide any improvement in security
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
While recently trying to debug a CEF issue, I found a good number of
packets in my debug cef drops output that were all directed at
198.32.64.12 (which I see as being allocated to ep.net but
completely unused).
As Steve Conte
On Aug 27, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Right. The real questions are the clients and the trust anchor --
what
root key do you support?
A distributed one. I personally don't really see an issue with
downloading a public key for every TLD out there. These keys could
come
in a
Just speaking of the IANA ITAR...
On Aug 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
How do you propose to establish the initial trust for these keys?
Current plan:
- The IANA ITAR will be reachable via HTTPS, so you could trust the CA
IANA uses for that website (don't know who that is
On Aug 27, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Of course embedded frobs that don't
auto-update like, oh say, your favorite router could be problematic.
You have a router that supports DNSSEC that can't be made to do some
form of auto-update?
In any case, the point of my first
Michael,
On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Sure, but my point is that if DNSsec all of a sudden has some
relevance
which is not the case today, any false positives are going to come
into
pretty stark relief.
Yep.
As in, .gov could quite possibly setting themselves
up
On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:47 AM, brett watson wrote:
We're lacking the authority and delegation model that DNS has, I
think?
If one were to ignore layer 9 politics, it could be argued the
authority/delegation models between DNS and address space are quite
analogous.
DNS:
IANA maintains .
On Aug 14, 2008, at 11:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ARIN holds the top of that authority and delegation hierarchy
because they give out the ASnums and IP address blocks.
And here I thought IANA handed out ASnums and IP address blocks to
ARIN (and RIPE and LACNIC and
On Aug 14, 2008, at 12:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And here I thought IANA handed out ASnums and IP address
blocks to ARIN (and RIPE and LACNIC and AfriNIC and APNIC and
the IETF for specific protocol requirements)...
We are talking Internet operations, not Internet
Danny,
On Aug 14, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:47 AM, brett watson wrote:
We're lacking the authority and delegation model that DNS has, I
think?
If one were to ignore layer 9 politics, it could be argued the
authority/delegation models between DNS and
On Aug 8, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
According to: http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/
The fine folks at NetBSD really need to update their IPv6 FAQ. That
stuff looks like the IPv6 marketing spiel from 1997 or so that has
long ago been proven ... 'optimistic'.
Rather than
Valdis,
On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:43:10 PDT, David Conrad said:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
The problem is, once the ICANNt root is self-signed, the hope of
ever
revoking that dysfunctional mess as authority is gone
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
The problem is, once the ICANNt root is self-signed, the hope of ever
revoking that dysfunctional mess as authority is gone.
Sorry, I don't follow -- sounds like FUD to me. Care to explain this?
As far as I'm aware, as long as the KSK isn't
Hi,
On Jul 23, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Robert D. Scott wrote:
Actually you are not missing anything. It is a brute force attack.
I haven't looked at the exploit code, but the vulnerability Kaminsky
found is a bit more than a brute force attack. As has been pointed out
in various venues, it
, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:28 PM, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
aside from just getting some cctlds signed, i will be interested
in the
tools, usability, work flow, ... i.e. what is it like for a poor
innocent cctld
On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Joao Damas wrote:
PS: I would also want a copy of, or a secure method to access, the
public part of the keys you use to sign those ccTLDs so I can place
them in ISC's DLV registry
IANA's 'interim trust anchor repository' will be publicly accessible
(of
On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Pressure your local ICANN officers?
Mmph. https://ns.iana.org/dnssec/status.html
(it's out of ICANN's hands)
Huh!?
...
It sounds like ICANN has the matter well in hand to me given
that it is only responsible for the
Love to. We can also put your trust anchors in the prototype ITAR
(see the first part of https://par.icann.org/files/paris/IANAReportKim_24Jun08.pdf)
.
Regards,
-drc
On Jul 9, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
There are 4 ccTLDs (se, bg, pr, br) that are signed.
wanna crawl in a
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:43 PM, James Hess wrote:
Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but
this is
I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like .DLL,
.EXE, .TXT
Or other domains that look like filenames.
Like .INFO, .PL, .SH, and, of course, .COM?
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
If my company pays for and registers a new TLD, let's
call it smtp for grins, and I create an A record for smtp.
in my top level zone file, how will users outside my company
resolve and reach that address?
I suspect the assumption is that no
On Jun 30, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
But considering the amount of flag waving and Caution: Wet
Floor signs ICANN placed when it rolled out something has
harmless as the IDN tests in the root, I'm surprised that they
haven't thought about all the
On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote:
But my uneducated opinion is that this current project appears to let
the .TLD loose and this will result in top level domains being
meaningless, without any trust.
Given the complexity of the new gTLD process, I think it safe to say
On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:59 PM, WWWhatsup wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
With that said, personally, I agree that more attention should be
spent on the welfare of the registrants. Unfortunately, given I work
for ICANN, my providing comments in the RAA public consultation along
those lines would
On Jun 28, 2008, at 4:19 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
thinking of all the nice security issues which come along (home,
mycomputer
and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe has the same security properties as .com
not exactly, as a lot of
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Well, at least the new TLDs will promote DNS-based cruft filtration.
You can
already safely ignore anything with a .name, .biz, .info, .tv
suffix, to
name just the worst.
Does this actually work? The vast majority of spam I
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
I'd rather see ICANN spend time on current problems instead of
making new ones.
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be
spending its time on?
Regards,
-drc
On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
The process ensures that too few new TLDs will be created for
it being a threat to VeriSign
This remains to be seen, at least from my perspective. I have no idea
how many TLDs are going to make it through the gauntlet or
On Jun 27, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
If we can't even guarantee
reliability with the small handful of TLDs currently in use, when we
start introducing arbitrary new ones to anybody that can pay, I'm
concerned that it's going to make user support even more of a headache
I might
On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
what little assurance we have that e.g. bankofamerica.com is the
legitimate (or should I say, _a_ legitimate) site for the financial
institution of the same name becomes less certain when we have e.g.
bank.of.america, www.bankofamerica.bank,
On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Phil Regnauld wrote:
As business models go, it's a fine example of how to build demand
without really servicing the community.
Of all the ways new tlds could have been implemented this has to be
the
most poorly thought out.
Oh, no. There
On Jun 27, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Bill Nash wrote:
Out of curiosity, what are the problems you feel ICANN should be
spending its time on?
For starters, has Verisign ever been sanctioned by ICANN for it's
business practices,
You mean like
On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Ken Simpson wrote:
How will ICANN be allocating these?
https://par.icann.org/files/paris/GNSO-gTLD-Update-Paris22jun08.pdf
Regards,
-drc
On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Is there any full disclosure clause in ICANN member contracts such
that gifts from, or stock in, a Registrar would be declared?
Not sure who an ICANN member would be. ICANN as a California
501c(3) has to publish all it's financial details.
On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:01 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote:
Does anyone know how if the new gTLD system will still give some
veto
power to some people over some domain names that are morally
objectable
to some people ?
See pages 17 - 20 of
Only the end-to-end principle...
Perhaps not relevant, but between any two consenting nodes, there can
be severe mangling of headers as long as what comes out the other side
looks pretty much the same as what went in. CSLIP is an example of
this.
Regards,
-drc
On May 3, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
William Warren wrote:
That also doesn't take into account how many /8's are being hoarded
by
organizations that don't need even 25% of that space.
which one's would those be?
While I wouldn't call it hoarding, can any single (non-ISP)
On May 4, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
The artifact of MIT and others
having /8s while the entire Indian subcontinent scrapes for /29s, can
hardly be considered optimal or right.
While perhaps intended as hyperbole, this sort of statement annoys me
as it demonstrates an
Has anyone ever figured out how to make multi-homing of customers who
only have a /64 assigned to them work?
Same way you make multi-homing of customers who only have a IPv4 /32
assigned to them work, i.e., not well.
Maybe the world really will end, and it's all due to IPv6!
Internet
Not to defend ATT or the statement regarding capacity, but...
On Apr 20, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one Internet exists,
thanks
to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private
companies.
I suspect this was referencing
Hi,
In another mailing list, someone has asserted that noone believes
router vendors who say [they can support 2M routes today and 10M with
no change in technology]. Or perhaps more accurately, the router
vendors claiming this are being a bit disingenuous in that while it
is possible
On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
How is answering a query on TCP/53 any MORE dangerous than
answering it
on UDP/53? Really. I'd like to know how one of these security
nitwits
justifies it. It's the SAME piece of software answering the query
either way.
How many bytes of
Hi,
On Aug 7, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why blocking TCP 53 is
considered such a security enhancement? It's a token gesture and
does nothing to really help improve security. It does, however,
cause problems.
It has been argued that
301 - 400 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
