On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Such a site would be the seed for when (if) we come up with the tech
for everyone to have PI and lose all the restrictions imposed so far.
Oh, we have the technology. It's called memory
If that were viable then we'd be doing it.
We are.
On Jul 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The logical candidate to operate option 1 was the IANA, and the RIRs were
having none of that. (For bonus points, explain how the RIRs continue to
exist if everyone can have all of the guaranteed-globally-unique IPv6 space
they wanted for
On Jul 25, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
having none of that. (For bonus points, explain how the RIRs continue to
exist if everyone can have all of the guaranteed-globally-unique IPv6 space
they wanted for free.)
whois.
http://whois.iana.org
what did I win? IANA
On Jul 25, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Indeed, best not listen to vendors
As it is best not to listen to doctors that tell you if you continue chain
smoking or eating 5000 calories a day, you'll likely regret
On Jul 25, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
My point was that as a cost center, IANA depends on funding from other
sources. The RIRs are a major source of that funding.
I guess it depends on your definition of major. From section 5.1 of ICANN's
draft FY11 budget
On Jul 25, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
probabaly every web server in USA e.g. Google, Verisign and sourceforge.
ALL companies that operate in the US are bound by law to abide by restrictions
that are defined at http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ and
elsewhere. Failure
Owen,
Correct, now, what portion of ICANN's budget is related to the NRO sector?
Read the ICANN budget. ICANN does not budget things that way.
You asked explain how the numbers side of IANA pays for anything when the RIRs
stop funding it?
Doug and I, who have a bit of knowledge on the
Bill,
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
inherited the role IANA staff performed prior to ICANN's creation. As far as I
am
Bill,
I suspect this thread has degenerated to the point of irrelevance, so this will
be my last comment. Feel free to have the last word.
On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:30 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_. The IANA _never_
Matthew,
On Jul 30, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
There's a good chance that in the long run multi-subnet home networks will
become the norm.
Why would a home user need multiple subnets?
Even today, people are
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:48 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:15:47 MDT, Mikhail Strizhov said:
Does anybody have\had experience with BGP announces containing AS 0 in
AS path?
I know that AS 0 is reserved by IANA, but still, is it possible to
receive such announce
Nathan,
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm not against ARIN, I think they have good intentions. I'd like to think
so anyway.
Same here. I'm honestly surprised that there is as much dissention from this
attitude as there seems to be...
I suspect the issue arises
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is no demand.
It would probably be useful to be public about which vendors are still saying
there is no demand for IPv6.
Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,
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
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
On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:58 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Oct 4, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Or the new whois doesn't scale as well as the old one.
New WHOIS scales much better than the old one; it would have
extremely challenging to assemble enough equipment to handle
the current
On Oct 6, 2010, at 5:53 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Thanks again for a wonderful conference!! :)
Thanks very much for the notes!
Regards,
-drc
On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31).
Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications the
RIRs gave for the /12s they received was that they were going to be using the
'bisection'
RS,
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
would use about .25 of the total available IPv6 address space.
Sure. I once did the math that suggested that even if you multiplied the
current IPv4
Joel,
On Oct 20, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Joel Esler wrote:
There are lots of places that /8, and multiple ones at that that aren't using
them.
Which /8s are those?
Thanks,
-drc
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have
happened...
Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this
problem, either.
ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab,
On Oct 31, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Would it help if ARIN's policies were changed to allow anyone and everyone
to obtain PI space directly from them (for the appropriate fee, of course),
and
then it was left up to the operating community to decide whether or not to
route the
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you then stopped paying?
Regards,
-drc
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
It's not a one size fits all situation.
Right. There are folks who are more than happy (in fact demand) to pay the
RIRs for PI space and pay their ISPs to get that space routed. There are
(probably) folks who are perfectly happy with PA and accept
On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. Please elaborate.
Currently, most
On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
David Conrad d...@virtualized.org writes:
Owen,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, one time.
Truly one time.
No other fees.
Let's say you returned all your IPv4 address space.
What would happen if you
On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/internet-traffic-reportedly-routed-chinese-servers/
I have read the article and the list, and I'm puzzled. It's pretty clear that
the root gets its records from a common source, and that the copies of
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone
supported, we may want to
Steve,
On Dec 1, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Wouldn't this simply change the focus of who can attack from the USG (which,
as far as I am aware, has not attacked the root) to some other government
(or worse, the UN)? Given a handle, folks are going to want to grab it when
they
Jorge,
On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I bet it is not a trivial enterprise to put together and give shape to
an organization like ICANN. My biggest concern is that somewhere in
the painful process of building this organization something got
completely derailed from its
On Dec 3, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
thanks... so, in this case, why did they take this action?
When folks with guns and little sense of humor show up at your door with a
sealed court ordered warrant relating to resources you have direct authority
over, would you tell them to
Cameron,
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
I believe a lot of folks think the routing paths should be tightly
coupled with the physical topology.
The downside, of course, being that if you change your location within the
physical topology, you have to renumber. Enterprises
On Dec 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
[CALEA] is designed to track down and prosecute people, not stop malicious
activity.
Right.
In order for the law to try and stop malicious activities (digital or real),
it must place constraints on our freedoms. See TSA/Airport Security.
Or,
On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Beavis wrote:
I come across this interesting link.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828tag=nl.e036
http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/
Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure?
Ignoring the fact that
On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project?
Because they'd have to dig up the streets, people's yards, etc. to do it.
There really are some natural
On Jan 5, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i have a rumor that arin is delaying and possibly not doing rpki that
seems to have been announced on the ppml list (to which i do not
subscribe).
I heard about the delay, but not about ARIN possibly not doing RPKI. That would
be ...
On Jan 5, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
pls express this to your local BoT or AC or ARIN Rep... see the other thread.
As I am not an ARIN member nor do I have any ARIN-delegated resources, it isn't
clear to me who my local BoT/AC/ARIN Rep might be. However, as I'm aware some
of
Paul,
On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:33 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
The definition of what comes under the public policy mailing list
umbrella has always been a bit confusing to me. Too bad something like
the APNIC SIGs and RIPE Working Groups don't really exist in the ARIN
region.
do you have a specific
Randy,
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
one difference in north america from the other 'regions' is that there
is a strong and very separate operator community and forum.
Right. However, it seems to me that this strong separation has led to exactly
the problem you raised. The
Paul,
On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
the price of changing what ARIN does is, at a minimum: participation.
Another view is that ARIN's whole and sole reason for being is to provide
services to the network operators in the ARIN region. As such, it would be
ill-advised for ARIN
Lee,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best Current
Operational Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and
document BCOPs.
While I think BCOPs (and BCOP BoFs) are a great idea, I guess the
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Let me see if I've got this right -- you think ARIN should change their
policies,
Not policies. Operations. Or rather, how ARIN communicates and obtains buy-in
from the operational community regarding operations that affect that community.
but
Owen,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a variety
public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make use of. In
other areas of public service provision, there are things like public
utilities
Owen,
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss.
Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members?
They can and sometimes do discuss operational matters there.
Operational matters that impact more than members?
The ACSP
Lee,
On Jan 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Are you saying ARIN needs an ombudsman function to make sure the Board
doesn't delay implementation of things the community wants while it figures
out whether doing such things will prevent it from doing other things the
community wants?
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My suspicion is that IANA is playing a game of battleship with the RIRs and
thursday we'll see who's won. Colored in for your convenience:
IANA instituted a variation of RFC 2777 some time ago to do /8 allocations to
the RIRs. I'd be
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That remains to be seen. If they give up their space, it is unclear that they
have any right to transfer it to another
organization rather than return it to the successor registry. There is no
precedent established showing that
this is allowed.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
You missed my pointed. Root servers are hard coded, but they aren't using a
well known anycast address.
Actually, most of the IP addresses used for root servers are anycast addresses
and given they're in every resolver on the Internet, they're
On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Any reason why RIPE NCC charges so much more?
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure-enduser.html
(other than because they can, I mean).
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_geographic_monopoly
Regards,
-drc
Robert,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from the actions of a
contractor faithfully executing it's duties on the behalf of the U.S.
Gov't. 'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting
on its behalf, nor to
Robert,
On Feb 3, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
As far as I am aware, the USG contract is with ICANN, not ARIN (see
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/ianacontract_081406.pdf,
section C.2.2.1.3).
Correct. _They_ can can delegate as they see fit, with no
John,
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
It does not talk to address space allocated to entities from the IANA or
other
registries prior to the RIRs existance.
Is it your belief that Jon did not intend RFC 2050 to apply to the existing
allocations maintained by the three
On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
Your suggestion that existing loans may be impacted means to be ignored
for evaluating future allocations does seems a bit superfluous when taken
in full context, but obviously must be considered as you are one of the
authors.
I believe (it
On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
Had they started the process a deacde ago instead of complaining that it's
too much work, not worth it, etc., etc., then some of it might have been
reclaimed by now.
How about 15 years ago: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1917
Regards,
-drc
On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
There is no one universal global routing table. They probably appear in
someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
Using public address space for private
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses are
owned by 12 different organizations instead of being golden
addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets into root
server operator politics...
there are perfectly
On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Ignoring historical mistakes, what would they be?
gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would want to renumber of out
198.32.64.0/24...
I guess you missed the part where I said Ignoring historical mistakes.
making them immutable pretty much
Congrats to all on getting this done! It's been a long time in coming. Good to
see it finally finished.
Regards,
-drc
On Feb 16, 2011, at 1:00 PM, John Curran wrote:
Apologies for cross-posting, but I believe this relevant to the NANOG
operator community.
FYI,
/John
Begin forwarded
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
At the end of this process every subdomain of ARPA will be fully
DNSSEC-signed.
Cool.
Query rates on the new servers (those operated by the RIRs and ICANN) are
currently low, but are expected to increase as the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone is
dropped
On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
computer diskette in HTML, ASCII,
Word or WordPerfect format (please
specify version).
Any problem with Postscript or PDF? Somewhat less
John,
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:42 AM, John Curran wrote:
As usual, I will simply point out to folks that ARIN will indeed
administer the policy as adopted, and will explain it as necessary in
various courtrooms.
Oddly, when I said something similar a few years back, I was accused of
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v.
ARIN. Kremen lost.
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/01/kremen_loses_ch_1.htm
Regards,
-drc
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
a technical reason to do it today. This is a layer 8/9 issue.
believe may
have been an additional ruling subsequent to what is covered at the cited URL.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:24 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed
George,
On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:44 PM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
Once there is a global trust anchor, you can validate the 5 APNIC operating
CA under a single root, single TAL. Until then, an APNIC TAL is necessary.
So, just to be clear, the lack of a single TAL is due to
Mark,
On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:47 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Looks to be right now.
Nope. Depends on from where you ask (presumably the ATT resolvers are
anycast). This is from a machine at LINX just now:
% dig @12.127.17.83 www.ben.edu
; DiG 9.9.2-vjs287.12 @12.127.17.83
Please don't feed the bigoted hypocritical trolls.
Regards,
-drc
On Nov 25, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Randy randy_94...@yahoo.com wrote:
Just because it is from Iraq; does NOT mean by any streach of the imagination
that OP is a terrorist!
You need to get outside the box you are living in and learn
On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Henning Brauer hb-na...@bsws.de wrote:
and re IANA, they made it clear they would not give us a proto number
As they should have. IANA abides by the rules laid down for it by the
IETF/IESG/IAB. The openbsd folks couldn't be bothered to even write up a draft
and
On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
If you want to get into software rewriting, the simplest thing I might come
up with would be to put TCBs in some form of LRU list and, at a point where
you need a port back, close the TCB that least recently did anything. My
On Dec 14, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
Other root servers have renumbered out of institutional, general-purpose
networks into dedicated networks in the past. I think the last one was B-Root
in 2004,
Actually, it was L in 2007... :)
Regards,
-drc
On Dec 15, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Oh, and you can just download the root zone from
ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/root.zone ...
Or, perhaps more conveniently, zone transfer the root zone from
xfr.lax.dns.icann.org or
xfr.cjr.dns.icann.org (see
On Dec 15, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
3 weeks is not a lot of time to inform every recursive service
operator in the world that there is a change coming.
Given the impact of the change, I figure 3 weeks is plenty.
Remember nameservers will start logging warning
Nick,
On Dec 15, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 15/12/2012 23:07, David Conrad wrote:
The handwringing over this issue is a bit over the top.
It's a question of what's procedurally sensible. Sensible things would
include longer notice of the impending change
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:30 PM, ITechGeek i...@itechgeek.com wrote:
For anyone who is worried that the root server change might impact them,
they can go to http://www.iana.org/domains/root/files and download the root
zone file. It probably won't need to be updated again until the next round
of
Rodney,
On Dec 31, 2012, at 7:41 AM, Rodney Joffe rjo...@centergate.com wrote:
Two weeks ago RIPE-NCC, who provide the whois data for IP addresses in the
RIPE region, informed us that based on decisions by their members, as of
January 1st 2013, tomorrow, they would no longer provide whois
Matt,
Thanks very much (as always) for the great notes! Extremely helpful.
Regards,
-drc
On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Notes from the afternoon session, including
the community meeting, but minus most of
the BCOP presentation have been posted:
Arturo,
On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
For example I know there are enterprises that would like to multihome
but they find the current mechanism a barrier to this - for a start they
can't justify the size of PI space that would guarantee them entry
On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Michael DeMan na...@deman.com wrote:
AsI think as we all know the deficiency is the design of the DNS system
overall.
One of the largest DDoS attacks I've witnessed was SNMP-based, walking entire
OID sub-trees (with spoofed source addresses) across thousands of
On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
The topic at hand and the specific questions that have been
asked as part of the consultation are important ones;
Do it when you feel like, nobody should notice. Anything
this important should be routine procedure,
Brandon,
On Apr 4, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
You do realize this requires changing validating resolver
configuration data, right?
Yes. How hard can it be (answer not required).
While it's quaint that the elders of the internet meet and bless each
Randy,
On Apr 6, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
at some point, long passed, the more pomp, the less safe i feel.
Have you actually watched/participated in a root key signing ceremony? Pomp is
not the term I would use.
there
is protecting against technical/engineering
On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
[...]
If you need the mechanism to work (...) then I can see why fetching and
caching a browser list over SSL (and perhaps shipping with a baseline version
of it) seems attractive.
Sounds like this could've been good logic for
On Apr 24, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Andrew Latham lath...@gmail.com wrote:
A demand curve would show that as prices increase, there is demand for fewer
IPv4 addresses.
And the other side of the coin: where there is demand and excess supply (e.g.,
allocated but unused addresses), the price increase
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
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 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 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?
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 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
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 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
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
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
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.
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
1 - 100 of 396 matches
Mail list logo
