From Keith at jcc.com Mon Jun 2 03:18:01 2008 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 03:18:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? Message-ID: <636e71d6317c9e350f2b583cc531b11648439ea3@jcc.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:28 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? >... > > Does the existence of this at that price point make the "we > gotta extend the life of IPv4" argument a moot issue? > > Or does the price point of IPv6 routers have to hit the > $19.95-on-sale-at-Walmart region to invalidate that argument? > The price point of of the RV4000 is about right. However, the specifications on the Linksys web site don't mention the fact that the RV4000 supports IPv6. I don't think IPv6 has a chance of being real until the term "IPv6" is important enough that the marketing people put it in the high level product descriptions. Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From dean at av8.com Mon Jun 2 10:14:52 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Edward B. DREGER wrote: > DA> From: Dean Anderson > DA> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Governance > > > ==== > > DA> Recall that Dreger, before falling off into irrelevant claims, > DA> asserts that my criticisms of ARIN management for disregarding the > DA> rules is somehow an ad hominem attack. > > I stated that your assertion of "no regards to rules or the laws" is a > personal attack -- unless you have some sort of proof. The proof is the actual lack of regard to rules and laws evident in the actual failure to account for rules and laws by ARIN board members in the proposal that was made. That isn't a personal attack. More nonsense ignored... --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 2 13:48:00 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:48:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Good Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <801AE25EB8134D5A8B54845AFC2C2F5E@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:15 AM > To: Edward B. DREGER > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Governance > > > > The proof is the actual lack of regard to rules and laws > evident in the actual failure to account for rules and laws > by ARIN board members in the proposal that was made. ALLEGED lack of regard for laws, Dean. I do not believe any of your ARIN allegations have been tested in a court of law. Until then, they are allegations only. > That > isn't a personal attack. > If the allegations are tested in a court and found to be unsubstantiated, then yes, they will become a personal attack. If not, then sanctions will undoubtedly result. Until then, both you and Edward are just blowing air at each other. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 2 14:10:59 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:10:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <636e71d6317c9e350f2b583cc531b11648439ea3@jcc.com> Message-ID: <3542B1CDF7F044D9AAA229E8B82E726F@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:18 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:28 PM > > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? > >... > > > > Does the existence of this at that price point make the "we > > gotta extend the life of IPv4" argument a moot issue? > > > > Or does the price point of IPv6 routers have to hit the > > $19.95-on-sale-at-Walmart region to invalidate that argument? > > > > The price point of of the RV4000 is about right. However, the > specifications on the Linksys web site don't mention the fact that the > RV4000 supports IPv6. > > I don't think IPv6 has a chance of being real until the term "IPv6" is > important enough that the marketing people put it in the high level > product descriptions. > I think it's the other way round. When the marketing people start putting IPv6 in the high level product descriptions, THEN we will know it's important and is being considered "real" Ted From Keith at jcc.com Mon Jun 2 16:41:12 2008 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:41:12 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? Message-ID: <9362845314ea51e374a94322204d31b148445ae4@jcc.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:11 PM > > > > I don't think IPv6 has a chance of being real until the > term "IPv6" is > > important enough that the marketing people put it in the high level > > product descriptions. > > > > I think it's the other way round. > > When the marketing people start putting IPv6 in the high level > product descriptions, THEN we will know it's important > and is being considered "real" > There is a circular problem here -- Marketing isn't pushing IPv6 until the customers demand it, and the customers won't know to demand IPv6 until Marketing pushes it. Keith From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon Jun 2 17:02:14 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:02:14 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <9362845314ea51e374a94322204d31b148445ae4@jcc.com> References: <9362845314ea51e374a94322204d31b148445ae4@jcc.com> Message-ID: <20080602210214.GA1571@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:41:12PM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:11 PM > > > > > > I don't think IPv6 has a chance of being real until the > > term "IPv6" is > > > important enough that the marketing people put it in the high level > > > product descriptions. > > > > > > > I think it's the other way round. > > > > When the marketing people start putting IPv6 in the high level > > product descriptions, THEN we will know it's important > > and is being considered "real" > > > > There is a circular problem here -- Marketing isn't pushing IPv6 until > the customers demand it, and the customers won't know to demand IPv6 > until Marketing pushes it. > > Keith > Keith, If there is a marketing push for IPv6, we, as a community will have failed. One might as well push CLNP, or NSAP, or DECnetPhaseV. The "market" for transport protocols in the commodity sector is almost nil. What sells is access and content. The delivery vehicle is moot as far as the commodity sector is concerned. From and -engineering- standpoint, if you can persuade the marketing folks that they can continue to sell access and content (services) now and into the future - at a lower cost tot he company, then you are likely to not lose your job. :) There are two pragmatic choices - embrace nested NAT technologoes over IPv4 as the only cost effective way forward - OR - embrace IPv6 as the most cost effective way forward. The other vectors are research projects, pipedream, nostalgia, or out-rigth delusional. --bill (my 0.02) From sleibrand at internap.com Mon Jun 2 17:21:04 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:21:04 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <20080602210214.GA1571@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <9362845314ea51e374a94322204d31b148445ae4@jcc.com> <20080602210214.GA1571@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <48446440.2010105@internap.com> bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > If there is a marketing push for IPv6, we, as a community will have > failed. One might as well push CLNP, or NSAP, or DECnetPhaseV. The "market" > for transport protocols in the commodity sector is almost nil. > > What sells is access and content. The delivery vehicle is moot as far > as the commodity sector is concerned. From and -engineering- standpoint, if you > can persuade the marketing folks that they can continue to sell access and content > (services) now and into the future - at a lower cost tot he company, then you > are likely to not lose your job. :) If you're talking about a marketing push from ISPs, etc., then you're right. But in the original context of equipment vendors, I think it is entirely appropriate for vendors to tout their equipment's features, whether it's IPv6, OSPF, BGP, or 802.11n. If they don't even *list* IPv6 as a feature, that says something not-so-good... -Scott From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jun 2 18:02:47 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:02:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <48446440.2010105@internap.com> Message-ID: <4D3DFA4F756E480EA65C7EB63116ACE4@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:21 PM > To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? > > > bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > If there is a marketing push for IPv6, we, as a > community will have > > failed. One might as well push CLNP, or NSAP, or > DECnetPhaseV. The "market" > > for transport protocols in the commodity sector is almost nil. > > > > What sells is access and content. The delivery > vehicle is moot as far > > as the commodity sector is concerned. From and > -engineering- standpoint, if you > > can persuade the marketing folks that they can continue > to sell access and content > > (services) now and into the future - at a lower cost > tot he company, then you > > are likely to not lose your job. :) > > If you're talking about a marketing push from ISPs, etc., > then you're right. > > But in the original context of equipment vendors, I think it > is entirely > appropriate for vendors to tout their equipment's features, > whether it's > IPv6, OSPF, BGP, or 802.11n. If they don't even *list* IPv6 as a > feature, that says something not-so-good... Remember that Bill said "commodity sector" Your talking "business sector" I think. If you want to create a marketing buzz about IPv6 then have Janet Jackson paint "IPv6" on her boobs and then pull off her bra at the next Super Bowl halftime show. That will give you more market awareness of what IPv6 is among the "commodity sector" than all of the education that we can do in our corner of the woods here. It just how the commodity market works. Individually they may be intelligent, together they are stupid as rocks. Ted From White.Andy at insightcom.com Mon Jun 2 18:22:26 2008 From: White.Andy at insightcom.com (White, Andy) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:22:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <4D3DFA4F756E480EA65C7EB63116ACE4@tedsdesk> References: <48446440.2010105@internap.com> <4D3DFA4F756E480EA65C7EB63116ACE4@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <1F2672B2A996FC4E8D31944956B99974020BA2D0@MAIL01.insight.ds> Actually, there's a couple of parallels going on I can think of... a (negative) example is the switch (in the US, anyway) from analog to all-digital TV. Another (better, IMO) example is the movement of the cellular phone industry (starting from analog to digital to 2G, now on to 2.5G, 3G, 4G, etc., etc.) If the switch requires mass consumer education, the answer is relatively simple but NOT easy... plan on incorporating IPv6 as a requirement for the 'next generation' service (wideband, wireless, whatever). If ISPs can focus on the business world first, let the marketplace dictate the move... it seems like IPv4 will become a fairly expensive proposition at some point. My $0.02... Andy -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:03 PM To: 'Scott Leibrand'; bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:21 PM > To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? > > > bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > If there is a marketing push for IPv6, we, as a > community will have > > failed. One might as well push CLNP, or NSAP, or > DECnetPhaseV. The "market" > > for transport protocols in the commodity sector is almost nil. > > > > What sells is access and content. The delivery > vehicle is moot as far > > as the commodity sector is concerned. From and > -engineering- standpoint, if you > > can persuade the marketing folks that they can continue > to sell access and content > > (services) now and into the future - at a lower cost > tot he company, then you > > are likely to not lose your job. :) > > If you're talking about a marketing push from ISPs, etc., > then you're right. > > But in the original context of equipment vendors, I think it > is entirely > appropriate for vendors to tout their equipment's features, > whether it's > IPv6, OSPF, BGP, or 802.11n. If they don't even *list* IPv6 as a > feature, that says something not-so-good... Remember that Bill said "commodity sector" Your talking "business sector" I think. If you want to create a marketing buzz about IPv6 then have Janet Jackson paint "IPv6" on her boobs and then pull off her bra at the next Super Bowl halftime show. That will give you more market awareness of what IPv6 is among the "commodity sector" than all of the education that we can do in our corner of the woods here. It just how the commodity market works. Individually they may be intelligent, together they are stupid as rocks. Ted _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jun 3 05:14:41 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:14:41 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <20080602210214.GA1571@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <9362845314ea51e374a94322204d31b148445ae4@jcc.com> <20080602210214.GA1571@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: > There are two pragmatic choices - embrace > nested NAT technologoes over IPv4 > as the only cost effective way forward - OR - embrace > IPv6 as the most cost effective > way forward. The other vectors are research projects, > pipedream, nostalgia, or > out-rigth delusional. Right. And marketing either of these is not the way to create demand. But marketing consulting services which will analyze a company's network and make reccomendations on a strategy to get through the looming IPv4 crisis, is definitely a way forward which will likely create demand for IPv6, assuming that most companies would be better off going with v6 rather than layered NAT. Unfortunately, most ISPs do not see themselves in the consulting business. This reminds me of the European VPN Users Association http://www.evua.org which was quite successful at providing consulting services to a range of companies to help them analyze their VPN needs, write effective RFPs for VPN service, demand effective terms in contracts, and choose the technology that was best for business, not just the latest trend. They helped many companies navigate through the maze of frame relay, ATM, private circuits, IPSEC over Internet, and MPLS VPN services. What we are missing at present, is an effective consultancy effort to help end user companies through the IPv4 crisis. They are plenty of consultants offering IPv6 training or doing rah-rah promotional tours, but as far as I know, none are offering the up front analysis needed to decide if and when an end user company should invest in IPv6. --Michael Dillon P.S. I mention the EVUA because back in 2000 I helped win a Europe-wide VPN contract based largely on making sure that our IPSEC VPN service fitted into their model, SLAs, etc. Sadly, most of the company (Ebone/GTS) felt that we knew better than the customer, and spent horrendous amounts of money trying to make an SDH multipoint VPN solution based on an untested startup named Cosine. Ebone no longer exists and Cosine is only a shell having sold off all their intellectual property. It can be much easier to say that the customer comes first than it is to actually execute based on that sentiment. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jun 3 05:24:24 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:24:24 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <1F2672B2A996FC4E8D31944956B99974020BA2D0@MAIL01.insight.ds> References: <48446440.2010105@internap.com><4D3DFA4F756E480EA65C7EB63116ACE4@tedsdesk> <1F2672B2A996FC4E8D31944956B99974020BA2D0@MAIL01.insight.ds> Message-ID: > If the switch requires mass consumer education, the answer is > relatively simple but NOT easy... plan on incorporating IPv6 > as a requirement for the 'next generation' service (wideband, > wireless, whatever). This is what happened during the digital TV transition in the UK. BBC has two channels on analog and 8 on digital. ITV has one on analog and three on digital. Basically you get 5 analog channels (it's a small country) but digital gives you over 30. This was enough to motivate a lot of people to go out and buy a digital box once the digital pay-TV experiment went bankrupt some 5 or 6 years ago. It has been a progressive process and now, after 8 years of digital broadcasting, they have begun to shut down analog transmitters. The major stores stopped selling analog TVs a couple of years ago around the same time that they stopped selling films on casette. The publicity caused by a couple of big market players was enough to tip the balance and create a rush away from analog. --Michael Dillon From Robert.Smales at cw.com Tue Jun 3 05:50:00 2008 From: Robert.Smales at cw.com (Smales, Robert) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:50:00 +0100 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <50A99E62AC7807448FA34A63A8AD0C700572C1B1@GBCWSWIEM001.ad.plc.cwintra.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of > michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: 03 June 2008 10:24 > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? > > > > If the switch requires mass consumer education, the answer is > > relatively simple but NOT easy... plan on incorporating IPv6 > > as a requirement for the 'next generation' service (wideband, > > wireless, whatever). > > This is what happened during the digital TV transition in the UK. > BBC has two channels on analog and 8 on digital. ITV has one > on analog and three on digital. Basically you get 5 analog channels > (it's a small country) but digital gives you over 30. This was enough > to motivate a lot of people to go out and buy a digital box once > the digital pay-TV experiment went bankrupt some 5 or 6 years ago. > To make this analogy work, someone would have to come up with IPv6-only websites which were sufficiently attractive to make people demand IPv6 (I switched from analog cable to digital because the second series of the West Wing was available on a digital-only channel) - are the porn sites going to take a lead on this? Robert Robert Smales IP Provide Engineer Cable&Wireless Europe, Asia & US This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ From dvega at centennialpr.com Tue Jun 3 09:52:23 2008 From: dvega at centennialpr.com (David Vega Colon) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:52:23 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] IP Address Updates Message-ID: Greetings! I am having this problem with the following network : 196.32.129.0/24. That network belongs Centennial de PR and was assigned to Dominican republic as our customers. Then, they are not our customer anymore, so they return the address to Centennial. I do the Net MOD process and reassign simple for another customers of Centennial in PR, and the address still on the DR location on sites like: www.ip2location, www.whatismyipaddress.com Is there somebody that encounter this issue and how to resolved? If this is not the f?rum for this, please point me to the right direction. Again thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Tue Jun 3 11:52:09 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:52:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Anyone play with IPv6 on the RV4000? In-Reply-To: <48446440.2010105@internap.com> References: <9362845314ea51e374a94322204d31b148445ae4@jcc.com> <20080602210214.GA1571@vacation.karoshi.com.> <48446440.2010105@internap.com> Message-ID: <20080603155209.GB14673@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 02:21:04PM -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote: > bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > If there is a marketing push for IPv6, we, as a community > > will have > > failed. One might as well push CLNP, or NSAP, or DECnetPhaseV. The > > "market" > > for transport protocols in the commodity sector is almost nil. > > > > What sells is access and content. The delivery vehicle is > > moot as far > > as the commodity sector is concerned. From and -engineering- > > standpoint, if you > > can persuade the marketing folks that they can continue to sell > > access and content > > (services) now and into the future - at a lower cost tot he company, > > then you > > are likely to not lose your job. :) > > If you're talking about a marketing push from ISPs, etc., then you're right. > > But in the original context of equipment vendors, I think it is entirely > appropriate for vendors to tout their equipment's features, whether it's > IPv6, OSPF, BGP, or 802.11n. If they don't even *list* IPv6 as a > feature, that says something not-so-good... > > > -Scott Scott, note carefully the phrase "commodity sector" ... Unless the feature does not demonstrably relate to an immediate value to the consumer (802.11n is -faster- than 802.11b) then its just marketing fluff... to the commodity sector. Clearly the engineering folks are going to want to see the type of features in equipment that will help them continue to do their jobs. But when you see "Vista - with IPv6" - are you going to buy it only to find out that you have to pay somebody to help you turn it off since the IPv6 seamless transport does not exist? At that point, my great aunt will avoid anything labled "IPv6" into the future. Its broken and costs more money. When/IF the engineering community can nail down a mostly seamless transition btwn adress families or btwn the same address family, then IPv6 rollout will have the chance to deploy. (like on your DOCSYS 3.0 modems). Its not going to be a selling point for the normal consumer. Geeks? Like you and I, perhaps. IPv6, this is not the marketing fluff you are looking for. --bill From info at arin.net Thu Jun 12 12:12:58 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:12:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Mailing Lists Message-ID: <48514B0A.3080804@arin.net> Mr. Dean Anderson's privilege to post and participate in ARIN's various mail lists has been permanently suspended effective 12 June 2008, 12:00 PM ET. This decision follows the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Committee in accordance with the procedures in ARIN's Mailing List AUP dated 27 March 2008. Mr. Anderson was previously warned in writing and temporarily suspended for violating ARIN's Mailing List AUP. Additional information and related documents can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/aup_comm.html Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From marjorie at datahive.ca Thu Jun 12 15:26:41 2008 From: marjorie at datahive.ca (Marjorie Zingle) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:26:41 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: <48514B0A.3080804@arin.net> Message-ID: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. > Mr. Dean Anderson's privilege to post and participate in ARIN's various > mail lists has been permanently suspended effective 12 June 2008, 12:00 > PM ET. This decision follows the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing List > Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Committee in accordance with the procedures > in ARIN's Mailing List AUP dated 27 March 2008. Mr. Anderson was > previously warned in writing and temporarily suspended for violating > ARIN's Mailing List AUP. > > Additional information and related documents can be found at: > > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/aup_comm.html > > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Thu Jun 12 15:51:25 2008 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:51:25 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hear hear! On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Marjorie Zingle wrote: > Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. > > >> Mr. Dean Anderson's privilege to post and participate in ARIN's >> various >> mail lists has been permanently suspended effective 12 June 2008, >> 12:00 >> PM ET. This decision follows the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing >> List >> Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Committee in accordance with the >> procedures >> in ARIN's Mailing List AUP dated 27 March 2008. Mr. Anderson was >> previously warned in writing and temporarily suspended for violating >> ARIN's Mailing List AUP. >> >> Additional information and related documents can be found at: >> >> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/aup_comm.html >> >> >> Raymond A. Plzak >> President & CEO >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net >> if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. Michael T. Halligan ------------------------ Chief Technology Officer BitPusher, LLC http://www.bitpusher.com/ From ml at t-b-o-h.net Thu Jun 12 16:42:38 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Mailing Lists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806122042.m5CKgcWd077237@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> No, its more like "We won't hear, We won't hear!".. Well, atleast via this medium......... Tuc/TBOH > > Hear hear! > > On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Marjorie Zingle wrote: > > > Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. > > > > > >> Mr. Dean Anderson's privilege to post and participate in ARIN's > >> various > >> mail lists has been permanently suspended effective 12 June 2008, > >> 12:00 > >> PM ET. This decision follows the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing > >> List > >> Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Committee in accordance with the > >> procedures > >> in ARIN's Mailing List AUP dated 27 March 2008. Mr. Anderson was > >> previously warned in writing and temporarily suspended for violating > >> ARIN's Mailing List AUP. > >> > >> Additional information and related documents can be found at: > >> > >> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/aup_comm.html > >> > >> > >> Raymond A. Plzak > >> President & CEO > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)