[135638] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Thu Jan 27 11:30:30 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:29:37 +0000
In-Reply-To: <22FB1A8D-90B3-49F1-BFD8-E581AAE1C808@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'm a bit torn on this issue. I haven't even heard any other "main-stream" =
sources say anything on this topic. But Incorrect info is bad too.
I hope the viewers who watched this are getting the gist that "Something wi=
cked this way comes". :)
LOL
- Brian J.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:49 AM
>To: Nick Hilliard
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>
>
>On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2011 11:21, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>> "I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4
>>> addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as
>saying,
>>> adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses.""
>>
>> Fortunately, web developers have fixed the problem according to Fox news=
:
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/26/internet-run-ip-addresses-
>happens-anyones-guess/
>>
>> "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating
>IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-d=
igit
>ones."
>>
>Consider the source... Fox -- All the news that's fit to misquote. (or som=
ething
>like that).
>
>Those guys never get anything technical or political right.*
>
>> It will be difficult initially, though:
>>
>> "But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not ab=
le to
>read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user
>experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all us=
ers
>will be able to view is a blank page."
>>
>> I'm glad Fox has cleared all this up for us.
>>
>ROFLMAO
>
>Owen
>
>*In order for Fox to sue me for libel, they first have to prove my stateme=
nt is
>false.
>
