Paul raises a critical point that IMO gets insufficient attention here...
On Mar 15, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Hi Paul,
Well, let's look at the flip-side for a moment. Imagine if there were
/no/ growth in prefixes. Is that good? I think the answer clearly is
no. No growth in
On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Pekka Savola allegedly wrote on 03/11/2010 08:52 EST:
FWIW, yes, it certainly was ambiguous, but it was apparent that lots of
folks interpreted it their own way.
I never got around to responding because of the ambiguities. Also I
don't see
On Mar 8, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-03-09 00:21, Tom Vest wrote:
On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Tony Li tony...@tony.li IPv4 is done. Over.
Cooked. Fully toast. It will either enter a black market
where we deaggregate and no proposal
On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Tony Li tony...@tony.li
IPv4 is done. Over. Cooked. Fully toast. It will either enter a black
market where we deaggregate and no proposal will help, or we shift to
v6 and v4 is irrelevant. In either case, we're not in time to do
On Mar 8, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Tony Li wrote:
What other potential options do you envision which might provide some
reasonable probability of avoiding this Catch-22?
A shift in the carriers away from anything IP based.
Tony
Unless I'm missing something, I think that we're agreeing with
On Feb 12, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Vest tv...@eyeconomics.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Danny McPherson da...@arbor.net wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM
On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Patrick Frejborg wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Patrick Frejborg pfrejb...@gmail.com
concern about having a mapping database for routing information
How does the mapping database differ, in
On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Robin Whittle wrote:
Long message ahead:
Discussing Tom's Liquidity Systems view of the
Internet's routing and addressing system.
I haven't yet found any insights from it which
help with scalable
On Apr 19, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Robin Whittle wrote:
Short version: Long reply to Tom Vest, discussing his concerns
about IPv4, even with a scalable routing solution,
hitting the limits of its address range and so
causing difficulties for aspiring
) IPv6 has been vetoed.
Before I even attempt to suggest what kind of extensions or
modifications might serve to remedy this perceived incumbent bias
I'd be very interested in hearing reactions from others...
Thanks,
Tom Vest
On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:40 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
Short
10 matches
Mail list logo
