Yeah I remember. The net will just route around the problem. http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-th... I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. But I do realize that they won't have Internet service in the camps, anyway so it won't matter to me. -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 7/17/2010 23:59, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-th...
Highlights: "The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet ... figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web ..." [Web = Internet] Jay Rockefeller: “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” [Is thid pile on Al Gore Month?] "The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill..." -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
CNN ran a mock up attack to the USA infrastructure with some reps of the government. The stuff was flawed in many ways, but I think the outcome of it, after each representative of the government arguing what the president can do and cannot do, was to solve the issue, the infrastructure providers needed to be involved, and asked "nicely" to help fix the problem, and not raided with a kill switch threat...or army personnel taking over all the knobs... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Sheldon" <LarrySheldon@cox.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, 18 July, 2010 5:07:34 PM Subject: [SPAM] Re: Internet Kill Switch. On 7/17/2010 23:59, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-th...
Highlights: "The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet ... figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web ..." [Web = Internet] Jay Rockefeller: “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” [Is thid pile on Al Gore Month?] "The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill..." -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
What ever happened to this? http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3271.txt -- Tom On 18/07/2010, at 2:37 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 7/17/2010 23:59, Larry Sheldon wrote: http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-th... Highlights: "The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet ... figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web ..." [Web = Internet] Jay Rockefeller: “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” [Is thid pile on Al Gore Month?] "The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill..." -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml -- Kind Regards, Tom Wright Internode Network Operations P: +61 8 8228 2999 W: http://www.internode.on.net<http://www.internode.on.net/>
On 6/18/2010 00:16, Tom Wright wrote:
What ever happened to this?
Every thing in that RFC from enabling freedom of speech to high volumes of untaxed dollars is anathema to the current administration. And yeah, that is politics and not BGP fine tuning. But if we don't take an interest in what they are doing, BGP isn't going to matter much. So, yes, this is a call to look at the layer 10 stuff a bit. If it isn't already too late. I've said my piece, moderators. Stand down. -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Maybe he has the power to switch it off - but only cn-nic has the power to reboot the hardware they sold us :) I am glad AX25 and AMPR.ORG even work without tcp/ip and IPv6 and they will continue to do even on solar power and batteries. Don't ever ask me to take my antennas down again. Cheers Peter (Dl2FBA) and Karin Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 6/18/2010 00:16, Tom Wright wrote:
What ever happened to this?
Every thing in that RFC from enabling freedom of speech to high volumes of untaxed dollars is anathema to the current administration.
And yeah, that is politics and not BGP fine tuning.
But if we don't take an interest in what they are doing, BGP isn't going to matter much.
So, yes, this is a call to look at the layer 10 stuff a bit.
If it isn't already too late.
I've said my piece, moderators. Stand down.
-- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
look like like they are trying to squeeze both ends. http://www.crn.com/networking/225700593;jsessionid=IR3YB1SGLW2BHQE1GHPSKH4AT... On 18/07/10 1:25 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 6/18/2010 00:16, Tom Wright wrote:
What ever happened to this?
Every thing in that RFC from enabling freedom of speech to high volumes of untaxed dollars is anathema to the current administration.
And yeah, that is politics and not BGP fine tuning.
But if we don't take an interest in what they are doing, BGP isn't going to matter much.
So, yes, this is a call to look at the layer 10 stuff a bit.
If it isn't already too late.
I've said my piece, moderators. Stand down.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Tom Wright <TWright@internode.com.au> wrote:
What ever happened to this?
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3271.txt
-- Tom
Unfortunately, I think Vint was a little optimistic there, and failed to guess at the impact the financial collapse was going to have on our rate of innovation and progress: "By 2008 we should have a well-functioning Earth-Mars network that serves as a nascent backbone of an inter- planetary system of Internets - InterPlaNet is a network of Internets!" He also seemed to miss one of the really, REALLY important points; if "Internet is for everyone" were really true, then IPv6 adoption should have been one of his driving points. After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place. But on the whole, other than being a bit dated at this point, it's still an inspiring read. Matt
On 6/18/10 2:21 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
He also seemed to miss one of the really, REALLY important points; if "Internet is for everyone" were really true, then IPv6 adoption should have been one of his driving points. After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
I read "Internet is for everyone" a bit beyond IP address. When I worked in the south pacific (1996-1998) we had challenges bringing Internet to residences because Internet was considered "for the wealthy". It took my colleagues and I a long time to break down this barrier. I have seen language barriers as another reason why Internet is not adopted in many places and thanks to IDN we can see this adoption increase. Although Vint doesn't call out IPv6 in this RFC he does talk about supporting work in the IETF, IAB etc and IPv6 work has come out of such dedication by many folks on this list. There are other challenges yet to tackle when it comes to making the Internet available to everyone e.g. Privacy. There are still folks who don't "trust" the internet so will not use it, for them we need to build a trustworthy internet. I do agree with your point that IPv6 is important and more important considering the Internet's explosive growth. Zaid
In article <AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes
After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
What's the average household size, especially in developing countries. And does "everyone" have access, if their home does? -- Roland Perry
-----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry [mailto:lists@internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:11 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet Kill Switch.
In article <AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes
After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
What's the average household size, especially in developing countries. And does "everyone" have access, if their home does? -- Roland Perry
[Tomas L. Byrnes] The issue is more that everyone who DOES have access has more than one device, and that many of those devices move around. I won't get into the "NAT breaks the Internet" war, but it certainly does limit the type of applications you can run, or at the very least makes network provisioning, operations and maintenance much more complex than a non-natted network.
On 6/19/2010 17:46, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
[Tomas L. Byrnes] The issue is more that everyone who DOES have access has more than one device, and that many of those devices move around. I won't get into the "NAT breaks the Internet" war, but it certainly does limit the type of applications you can run, or at the very least makes network provisioning, operations and maintenance much more complex than a non-natted network.
I'm guessing that when the last of us olde fartes have have died off and each person on the planet (on average) is associated with seven addressable devices* and all of the applications in use have been designed and implemented to operate over NAT connections, only the historians (as a maximum) will be interested in the technology that broke the Internet. * every now and again I write something like that, and wonder, as I am now, if the number I grabbed out of thin air is "reasonable" (what ever that turns out to mean). Count with me now (note--I see "addressable" as bigger than "IP addressable. I'm not sure what that means, except that I don't have work out the technology in use in cases where I don't know how they are addressable, just that they are.) On the kitchen table. Lap-top computer, wireless (not how the Brits won that one after all) mouse, portable ("wireless") telephone, Blackberry (4 addresses?) Enroute from here to the world. Two wiffy terminals, Cable "router" (at least two addresses), Cable terminal. (Maybe more?) Also involved in the house. Wife's Laptop, Wife's desk-top, Wife's Blackberry, My desk-top, A file-server, Six other addressable portable telephone sets Four TV sets, Two garage-door openers, A light switch, Two Ford Explorers. We don't have any exotics like addressable ovens, refrigerators, or soft-drink machines. -- Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:46:37 -0700 "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb@byrneit.net> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry [mailto:lists@internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:11 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet Kill Switch.
In article <AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes
After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
What's the average household size, especially in developing countries. And does "everyone" have access, if their home does? -- Roland Perry
[Tomas L. Byrnes] The issue is more that everyone who DOES have access has more than one device, and that many of those devices move around. I won't get into the "NAT breaks the Internet" war, but it certainly does limit the type of applications you can run, or at the very least makes network provisioning, operations and maintenance much more complex than a non-natted network.
Yeah, it's scary. "Issues with IP Address Sharing" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02
participants (10)
-
Franck Martin -
James Jones -
Larry Sheldon -
Mark Smith -
Matthew Petach -
Peter Dambier -
Roland Perry -
Tom Wright -
Tomas L. Byrnes -
Zaid Ali