On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:00 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
And in complete fairness - why should folks who received vast tracts
of addresses for little or no cost under a justified-need regime now
have free reign to monetize their sale?
All of the real estate in my part of New York
Watching people snark on mailing lists is occasionally entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing lists is usually less entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing list for 100+ posts when the things they are
snarking about were voted on by themselves is getting a
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been fixed by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John et al,
I have read many of your articles about the need to migrate to IPv6
and how failure to do so will impact business continuity sometime in
the next 1 - 3 years. I've pressed our vendors to support IPv6 (note:
keep in mind we're a
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Funny!
On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero
cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use
their allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
IP addresses, that they were merely holding the addresses in trust for
the public they serve.
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for
end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 08/14/2010 11:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people
walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The
vendor told each, in turn, You're the only one asking for it.
On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
That was Civil War, for freed slaves. Here in NY, war of independence
veterans were given at least 100 acres each.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson jimi.thomp...@gmail.com wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865)
not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to
in this thread.
Joel's
I think you mistake my meaning. I don't regard RA and SLAAC as a problem. I
regard their limited capabilities as a minor issue. I regard the IETF religion
that insists on preventing DHCPv6 from having a complete set of capabilities
for some form of RA protectionism to be the largest problem.
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks who are accusing ARIN of abuse of network. With the
possible
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:32:50PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks
40 Acres and a Mule were promised to every slave freed in the south by
General Grant. It was later rescinded. 600 acres was promised to
non-landowning general militia soldiers after the Revolutionary war.
You're only off by ~100 years.
Andrew
On 8/14/2010 1:27 PM, Jimi Thompson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 15:25, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said:
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue
space.
Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non
payment after
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:32, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
steaming load that is not gonna change.
Yes, those definitions create a steaming load.
But why is
for the embarrassing wannabe example of the month, marla and lee [0] at
the last ietf is just such a shining example. at the mic, they state
are from the arin ac and board, like it was their day job and they were
speaking fo rarin ploicy. and they propose to roll back a decade of
progress
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
this is less clear-cut than you seem to think it is. but i suspect we
will see it in court
A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space for B
and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive resource
requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:k...@sizone.org]
Sent: Friday,
This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one
of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed
like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the only oddball pushing
the IPv6 feature requirement. I tried to explain to him that by this
A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space
for B and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive
resource requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick?
maybe you should not be searching for a stick.
The vendor I referred to earlier that does not support IPv6 explained
this in a private meeting, not a sales pitch. We already use their
products extensively. The discussion was more to the tune of we
developed IPv6 support but stopped including it in the firmware
releases because no one was using
Randy Bush wrote:
John - you do not get it...
vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
class travel for wannabe
On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Question: Why does it cost $11 million or more per year (going to some
$22 million per year after 2013) to run a couple of databases that are
Internet-accessible?
Patrick - If this is a reference to ARIN, the budget is approximately
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... wanna
On 08/14/2010 21:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka
Owen,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Let's clarify the definition of abuse in this context. We are not talking
about people who use their IPs to abuse the network. We are talking about
resource recipients who use their allocations or assignments in contravention
to the
28 matches
Mail list logo
