Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer
to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not
necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
upside to making it easy to
Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).
Maintenance of GeoIP-databases becomes easier and less error-prone ?
Possible less out of date because of it.
We've seen complaints about those many
On 03/02/2010 11:46 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an
upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity).
Maintenance of GeoIP-databases becomes easier and less error-prone ?
Possible less out of date
just to undermine the ITU's (only) point,
why don't we simply have IANA delegate lets say 25% of the available ipv6
space to AFRINIC and APNIC now, like, -now- already...
if they're so concerned about the developing countries surely, most of
them would be in those regions :P and that should
On Mar 3, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer
to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not
necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside.
Care to explain what that could possibly
It looks like there's some kind of loop going on where nanog seems to be
getting multiple copies of anything also posted to:
l...@uralttk.ru, na...@nanog.org, members-disc...@ripe.net
My money's on all the crazy stuff I'm seeing in the headers about
postboy.ripe.net and postgirl.ripe.net,
CB3ROB scribbled:
let the riots commence 2.0
Oh dear oh dear...
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
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
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 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
And that is only the
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said:
(considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of
running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
I would not be
On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:25 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said:
(considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of
running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network
Hm, I was under the impression
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote:
CB3ROB scribbled:
let the riots commence 2.0
Oh dear oh dear...
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)
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns.
Um,
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600
Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet
and SIPRnet, and
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote:
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet,
and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it
existed, you are
On 3/1/2010 12:53 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600
Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100
From: Adam Waite awa...@tuenti.com
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
While ESnet is funded
On 03/01/2010 09:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
network...
Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
ARPANET only
19 matches
Mail list logo
