valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
Does anybody actually *have* a functional 7 track drive?
Maybe the people running http://www.cray-cyber.org have one.
(If you ever come to Munich, try to visit this museum.)
Jens
--
-
|
The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the
membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the
existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm
unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized,
On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500
Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression
that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most
ARIN members don't actively
On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jim Duncan wrote:
With my parliamentarian hat on:
A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum
number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates
for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an
A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a
minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the
slate of candidates for election.
it should ensure that folk who are not *technically* qualified, e.g. not
members, not human people, ... are not on the slate.
My apologies to all. I was hoping the conversation would be of an
operational nature.
I deleted the vast majority of messages in the thread as they weren't
relevant.
If anyone wants I can post smaller scope subject threads. Or a summary
of the operationally relevant bits in the thread.
Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net writes:
Hi, Paul.
sorry for the delay. i'll include the entirety of this short thread.
For what it's worth, I agree that ARIN has a pretty good governance
structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully
unbalanced.) ...
as
Hi, Paul.
On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
My understanding is that the NomCom consists of 7 people. Of those, 2
come from the board and 2 come from the AC. Together, those 4 members of
the existing establishment choose the remaining 3 NomCom members. In the
past, there was at
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500
Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
Earlier this year I received the following from ARIN member
services: This year the NomCom charter was changed by the Board.
In the past the 3 Member volunteers were selected at random. This
year the 3
Paul (and NANOG readers, because Paul actually already knows this),
With my parliamentarian hat on:
A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number
of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for
election. it should never be a gating
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:22:43AM -0400, Barton F Bruce wrote:
Does anybody actually *have* a functional 7 track drive?
The folks restoring at least one IBM 1401 probably have several.
http://ibm-1401.info/
A few (dozen) years ago, I was treated to a interesting demonstration where
a
http://ibm-1401.info/
A few (dozen) years ago, I was treated to a interesting demonstration
where a coworker poured an oily fluid containing tiny metallic flakes
on a patch of tape. The bits on the tape could be clearly seen by
the naked eye, and could be decoded (ever so slowly!) using a
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:14:59AM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:32:04 +0200, Randy Bush said:
you left out one connection via a chevy full of hollerith cards and the
second a canoe full of 7 track tape in waterproof containers.
Does anybody actually *have*
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:07:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
nationwide network
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
you left out one connection via a chevy full of hollerith cards and the
Randy Bush wrote:
http://ibm-1401.info/
A few (dozen) years ago, I was treated to a interesting demonstration
where a coworker poured an oily fluid containing tiny metallic flakes
on a patch of tape. The bits on the tape could be clearly seen by
the naked eye, and could be decoded (ever so
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
nationwide network
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:14:59 -0400
Does anybody actually *have* a functional 7 track drive?
I _think_ there's a guy in OZ that still has one or more.
Haven't
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:15 AM
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:32:04 +0200, Randy Bush said:
you left out one connection via a chevy full of hollerith cards and
the
second a canoe full of 7 track tape in waterproof
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 9/19/2011 6:02 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
that the other
Once upon a time, Henry Yen he...@aegisinfosys.com said:
A few (dozen) years ago, I was treated to a interesting demonstration where
a coworker poured an oily fluid containing tiny metallic flakes on a patch
of tape. The bits on the tape could be clearly seen by the naked eye,
and could be
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
If what you have is LEC frame relay service over which you have PVCs to
two
providers of IP transit service, then, IMO, you are multihomed. Are you
protected against every single
Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net writes:
For what it's worth, I agree that ARIN has a pretty good governance
structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully
unbalanced.) ...
as the chairman of the 2011 ARIN NomCom, i hope you'll explain further,
either
Hi, Paul.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:43, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net writes:
For what it's worth, I agree that ARIN has a pretty good governance
structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully
unbalanced.) ...
as the
I plan to announce my ASN out of 3 physically diverse hops over 100mbps
or gige. I believe that qualifies as multihoming under pretty much all
definitions?
On that note, is anyone familiar with peering fabrics in 60 Hudson and
600 West 7th (or peering fabrics that are fiber close in those
On September 20, 2011 at 02:00 he...@aegisinfosys.com (Henry Yen) wrote:
A few (dozen) years ago, I was treated to a interesting demonstration where
a coworker poured an oily fluid containing tiny metallic flakes on a patch
of tape. The bits on the tape could be clearly seen by the
On Sep 20, 2011, at 5:01 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 9/19/2011 6:02 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why would you say that a GRE or other tunnel is not full-time connectivity? I
have full-time GRE tunnels to two ISPs and they do actually constitute
multihoming under the ARIN interpretation of NRPM 2.7.
i.e. if you have a leased line
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
In the way that you are apparently incapable of reading what was written.
Jon very clearly states that if the GRE tunnel goes over the same physical
infrastructure, it is not multihoming. Then you go on to explain how you
have
If you open the door to that sort of interpretation, then every org with a T1
and a backup dial-up connection can claim to be multihomed.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
In either of these cases, it's not enough to just have the connection. The
ARIN NRPM definition of Multihomed
On Sep 20, 2011 3:21 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you open the door to that sort of interpretation, then every org with
a T1 and a backup dial-up connection can claim to be multihomed.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
In either of these cases, it's not enough to just
On 9/20/11 12:24 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
On Sep 20, 2011 3:21 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you open the door to that sort of interpretation, then every org with
a T1 and a backup dial-up connection can claim to be multihomed.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
In either of
On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
In the way that you are apparently incapable of reading what was written.
Jon very clearly states that if the GRE tunnel goes over the same physical
infrastructure, it is not
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net said:
In the way that you are apparently incapable of reading what was
written. Jon very clearly states that
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Chris Adams wrote:
Devil's advocate: if you have links to two carriers, but they are
delivered via the same LEC on the same fiber, are you multihomed? What
about if you have two LECs at your facility, but the two circuits share
a common path elsewhere (outside of your
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:13:57 EDT, Dorn Hetzel said:
full time connection to two or more providers should be satisfied when the
network involved has (or has contracted for and will have) two or more
connections that are diverse from each other at ANY point in their path
between the end network
On 9/20/11 1:05 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
However, I believe the spirit of the NRPM is clear. Two circuits in
the same conduit would qualify, one circuit with two BGP sessions does
not.
Totally disagree. If I have a metro ethernet circuit and can see both my
transit providers over the
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:57PM -0400, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
full time connection to two or more providers should be satisfied when the
network involved has (or has contracted for and will have) two or more
connections that are diverse from each other at ANY point in their path
between the
This has deviated so far from a useful technical discussion, it isn't even
amusing anymore.
From http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/
Our pre-posting guide for messages to the NANOG e-mail list:
Does my email have operational/technical content?
ANSWER: NO.
Would I be interested in
Thank you! 112 Emails on this subject, I am sick of it.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Bill P wrote:
This has deviated so far from a useful technical discussion, it isn't even
amusing anymore.
From http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/
Our pre-posting guide for messages to the NANOG e-mail
Ok, I would propose something like:
full time connection to two or more providers should be satisfied when the
network involved has (or has contracted for and will have) two or more
connections that are diverse from each other at ANY point in their path
between the end network location or
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Chris Adams wrote:
Devil's advocate: if you have links to two carriers, but they are
delivered via the same LEC on the same fiber, are you multihomed? What
about if you have two LECs at your facility, but the two circuits
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:57PM -0400, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
full time connection to two or more providers should be satisfied when
the
network involved has (or has contracted for and will have) two or more
Randy is right that ARIN has missed a step here.
It is unfortunate that there is no tool in existence that would test
conformance of a whois server, and with hindsight, it would have been
a good idea for ARIN to sponsor such a tool on one of the open source
repo sites like github or googlecode.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
What about if you have two LECs at your facility, but the two circuits
share a common path elsewhere (outside of your knowledge)?
p=1.0, *even* if you're paying for guaranteed physical diversity.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R.
I disagree. I think that the underlying physical topology of your network is
something
ARIN is quite intentionally agnostic about.
Owen
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll
make the bold assumption that
On Sep 19, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
However, your statement that I only welcome change funneled through
ARIN-managed channels is incorrect, as I have made it quite plain
on multiple occasions that the structure of the Internet number
registry system itself is not
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
On 09/18/2011 08:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll
make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was
written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended
All transfer requests which meet the policies get approved and
updated in the registry. ARIN does turn down transfer requests
which don't meet policy, and this potential is often understood
and covered in proposed sale documents for IP address blocks.
would you be willing to describe what
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:17:57 PDT, Cameron Byrne said:
Call me optimistic but ipv6 does not have these issues...
For anyone making STRATEGIC choices about ipv4 investments... beware of
sharks in these waters, not just the cgn pains
For many of us (especiially the ones who have ipv6
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:34 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
All transfer requests which meet the policies get approved and
updated in the registry. ARIN does turn down transfer requests
which don't meet policy, and this potential is often understood
and covered in proposed sale documents for IP address
On 09/18/11 19:41, Frank Bulk wrote:
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be
heresy for some.
I don't think the
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be
heresy for some.
That's not
On 9/19/2011 6:02 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be
On 9/19/2011 6:02 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be
1) One IP connection via a T-1. Second IP connection via GRE tunnel
carried on first.
2) One IP connection via a T-1 that doesn't have transit, only peering
with providers B and C. IP connections via two GRE tunnels to providers
B and C.
3) One IP connection via MPLS over T-1. Second
On 9/19/2011 8:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
you left out one connection via a chevy full of hollerith cards and
the second a canoe full of 7 track tape in waterproof containers.
They certainly have different loss characteristics, even if you don't
get unique routing policy out of it.
Matthew
On 9/16/2011 12:58 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a new ARIN member requested an IPv4 block of say
a /16 for a new business? Or even a smaller block. I don't know what the
current ARIN rules are but RIPE will currently give out six months worth of
space. Now, in six
On 9/18/2011 7:27 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but
I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy
when it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify
- Original Message -
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
you left out one connection via a chevy full of hollerith cards and
the second a canoe full of 7 track tape in waterproof containers.
That's a station wagon full of magtape. Henry would be disappointed.
Cheers,
-- jra
* See also
On 09/19/2011 10:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 9/16/2011 12:58 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a new ARIN member requested an IPv4
block of say a /16 for a new business? Or even a smaller block. I
don't know what the current ARIN rules are but RIPE will currently
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:32:04 +0200, Randy Bush said:
you left out one connection via a chevy full of hollerith cards and the
second a canoe full of 7 track tape in waterproof containers.
Does anybody actually *have* a functional 7 track drive? I remember seeing a
story on PBS (may have been a
given that as 729 maxes out at 800cpi there are probably slightly kinky
ways to attack the problem, e.g. someone doing it with disk packs.
http://chrisfenton.com/cray-1-digital-archeology/
there's still plenty of equipment that can wrap 1/2 tape around a spindle.
On 9/19/11 21:14 ,
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro*
Does anybody actually *have* a functional 7 track drive?
The folks restoring at least one IBM 1401 probably have several.
http://ibm-1401.info/
Other than replacing a lot of older tab shop hardware, a primary
On Saturday 17 Sep 2011 22:37:46 Randy Bush wrote:
one to post overly aggressive defensive messages on nanog
I am not convinced that Mr. Bush is best placed to comment on this
particular issue.
--
The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail
to lists complaining
one to post overly aggressive defensive messages on nanog
I am not convinced that Mr. Bush is best placed to comment on this
particular issue.
you seem to have a problem differentiating defense from offense. i
recommend you not play chess. :)
randy
On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
one to post overly aggressive defensive messages on nanog
I am not convinced that Mr. Bush is best placed to comment on this
particular issue.
you seem to have a problem differentiating defense from offense. i
recommend you not play chess.
one to post overly aggressive defensive messages on nanog
I am not convinced that Mr. Bush is best placed to comment on this
particular issue.
you seem to have a problem differentiating defense from offense. i
recommend you not play chess. :)
Randy is perfectly right in expressing his
On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i just think that we, as a culture, have let things get wy out of
whack. john is paid to defend the status grow.
I like that: status grow. It seems pretty clear to me that, as humans, we're
not very good at organizational contraction.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
IPv4 trading is already taking place, what are you (as operators)
planning to do when asked to route prefixes that have been
bought/sold? Will you accept alternative (whois) registry sources?
why the heck should i have to? the iana and the
I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no
intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a
relationship with ARIN and be subjected to existing policy, for
instance.
so your point is that your friends at depository.com will be attractive
to ip address
On Sep 18, 2011, at 15:51, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no
intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a
relationship with ARIN and be subjected to existing policy, for
instance.
so your point is that
On Sep 18, 2011 1:08 PM, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
On Sep 18, 2011, at 15:51, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no
intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a
relationship with ARIN
On 9/18/11 1:08 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Sep 18, 2011, at 15:51, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no
intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a
relationship with ARIN and be subjected to existing
Where I live in rural America, I would not be surprised that someone who wanted
to start an ISP might only be able to cost-justify one upstream. When one
Internet T-1 is $1,200/month, getting a second T-1 for that price from another
provider just to get an AS or PI is definitely
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: 18 September 2011 23:14
To: 'Charles N Wyble'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
building a nationwide network
Where I live in rural America, I would not be
On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes
change as long as it's funneled through the ARIN-managed channels. In other
words, change is welcome as long as it reinforces ARIN's role as facilitator.
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll make
the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was written.
Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Leigh Porter
On Sep 18, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Sep 18, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
why the heck should i have to? the iana and the frelling rirs' one
principal task is to register. if they do not register transfers then
what are we all smoking?
I don't disagree...
On 09/18/2011 08:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll
make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was
written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
Well that would be a shame in my
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but
I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when
it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
I think this is a bad idea and I suspect
I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make
clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and
that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be
heresy for some.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Querubin
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll
make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was
written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
ARIN is
On Sep 18, 2011, at 21:20, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes
change as long as it's funneled through the ARIN-managed channels. In other
words, change is
On 9/16/11 13:50 , Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
As an ISP, ARIN will not give you any space if you are new. You
have to already have an equivalent amount of space from another
provider.
does arin *really* still have that amazing barrier to market
entry?
Yes. If you want PI space, you have to
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 12:06, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
.
The ARIN community is easily it's own worst enemy.
Not to mention the difficulty of actually getting a provider to let you
announce their PA IP space to other providers if you already are / want
multihoming.
I just got
As an ISP, ARIN will not give you any space if you are new. You
have to already have an equivalent amount of space from another
provider.
does arin *really* still have that amazing barrier to market
entry?
Yes. If you want PI space, you have to start off with PA space,
utilize it, and then
On Sep 17, 2011 10:41 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
As an ISP, ARIN will not give you any space if you are new. You
have to already have an equivalent amount of space from another
provider.
does arin *really* still have that amazing barrier to market
entry?
Yes. If you want PI
All of the speculation and comment on this thread has been something
to watch, but, it's not actually all that accurate.
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2
NRPM 4.2 provides several ways in which an ISP can qualify for space
As has been mentioned in this thread, efficiently using a PA
- Original Message -
All of the speculation and comment on this thread has been something
to watch, but, it's not actually all that accurate.
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2
NRPM 4.2 provides several ways in which an ISP can qualify for space
As has been mentioned
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
2) Obtain ipv6 space from ARIN (inquired about getting space and ran into
some issues. need to speak with my co founder and get details. evidently
getting brand new v6 space for a brand new network is fairly difficult. for
now may just
On Sep 17, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I have a small ISP customer who is not multi-homed, and is using about a /21
and a half of space, and is expanding. Their upstream is refusing to give
them more space, so they wanted to get their own, and give back the space to
the
On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:19 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
2) Obtain ipv6 space from ARIN (inquired about getting space and ran into
some issues. need to speak with my co founder and get details. evidently
getting brand new v6 space for a brand
On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
- Original Message -
All of the speculation and comment on this thread has been something
to watch, but, it's not actually all that accurate.
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2
NRPM 4.2 provides several ways in
On 09/17/2011 01:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
2) Obtain ipv6 space from ARIN (inquired about getting space and ran into some
issues. need to speak with my co founder and get details. evidently getting
brand new v6 space for a brand new network
One more reason we can all do ourselves a favor by moving to ipv6,
remove the number scarcity issue and associated baggage of begging for
numbers
silly hope. we created monopoly organizations. this kind of thing is
self-perpetuating.
randy
I have absolutely no doubt that there are sufficient folks
participating in NANOG to get nearly any policy desired
through the ARIN policy process. To the extent that folks
don't care to learn the current policies and participate in
the policy development process, they end up
On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I have absolutely no doubt that there are sufficient folks
participating in NANOG to get nearly any policy desired
through the ARIN policy process. To the extent that folks
don't care to learn the current policies and participate in
the
I have absolutely no doubt that there are sufficient folks
participating in NANOG to get nearly any policy desired
through the ARIN policy process. To the extent that folks
don't care to learn the current policies and participate in
the policy development process, they end up
On Sep 17, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
One more reason we can all do ourselves a favor by moving to ipv6,
remove the number scarcity issue and associated baggage of begging for
numbers
silly hope. we created monopoly organizations. this kind of thing is
self-perpetuating.
Randy
Strange... You seem to overcome it well enough to join in the
discussion on PPML, but not to actual propose changes to policy.
i believe you are mistaken. i am not knowingly a subscriber to ppml,
and am not, to the best of my knowledge, participating in any
discussion(s) there.
a search of
One more reason we can all do ourselves a favor by moving to ipv6,
remove the number scarcity issue and associated baggage of begging for
numbers
silly hope. we created monopoly organizations. this kind of thing is
self-perpetuating.
Randy - If you wish to propose an alternative which
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
