[ppml] Dean Anderson, 130.105.0.0/16 and the future of the IPv4 Internet.]

[Paul Vixie]

> > actually, you pretty much lost both of those arguments, and demonstrated
> > considerable technical ignorance in the process.
> 
> Really?  You didn't get AXFR clarify though, and that scheme failed entirely.

it wasn't my clarification.  i never supported the draft since RFC 1034 was
quite clear on the matter as far as i was concerned.  which is, i think, what
IESG ruled during last call.  if some other RFC has amended 1034 to cause
BIND's behaviour to be noncompliant, please point it out.  i can't and won't
try to imagine what scheme you thought this was part of, or what success or
failure of that scheme would have meant to you.

> And the Anycast scheme, while you got it through by playing
> hardball, isn't working, for the reasons I said it wouldn't.

you didn't understand what "working" would mean, and apparently still don't.
many servers, be them root, TLD, or SLD, have run with IP Anycast for many
years, and they are working fine.  if you can show me a tcpdump that shows
failure where IP Anycast is used and shows success otherwise, and it's not
due to a configuration error or topology constraint violation on your end, i
remain willing to look at it.  meanwhile, this was never more than a tempest
in a teapot, and i don't think you knew what you were talking about then, or
now.

> > for the record, i have no cronies and i don't have time for retaliation.
> 
> Really? Good to hear. (Just wish it were true.)

that something could be good to hear even though you don't believe it, would
astound me under any normal circumstances.

> > ECPA had no bearing on the issues at the heart of Exactis vs. MAPS.
> 
> I never said it did. I think Exactis claimed Antitrust, fraud,
> extortion, violation of the Colorado Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act and some other things I can't remember right now.

please re-raise this assertion when your memory improves.

> Just by way of reference, many people will remember Paul Vixie blustering in
> the 1990s about how he looked forward to a lawsuit to resolve all these
> questions.

as i've said, there are lawsuits one welcomes when the nasdaq is above 5000
that aren't as welcome when it's below 1500.  being right doesn't mean you
can afford discovery costs from determined and well funded opponents.

> ... See http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html

thanks for reminding me about <http://www.dotcomeon.com/emergency.html>.  i
had lost the url, and somebody recently didn't believe me when i told them i
was considered responsible for the 9/11 attacks against the world trade center.

> > > But in September 1997, Vixie also claimed to have no association
> > > with MAPS after concerns about conspiracy in restraint of trade. And
> > > we know that turned out to be false.
> > 
> > reference, please?
> 
> See the article on http://www.iadl.org/maps/maps-story.html Under the
> heading "September, 1997: Problems, Blacklists, Coercion" There is a link to
> your message on Nanog.

can you be more specific, and quote it here?

> > > ISC.ORG hosts SORBS.
> > 
> > ISC does not host SORBS.  
> 
> http://www.iadl.org/bm/bill-manning-story.html
> 
> 204.152.186.189 still resolves to www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net.
> 
> Saying ISC doesn't host SORBS is more dissembling, by the way.

thanks for the notice.  i've updated that PTR.  now i'm hosting av8 instead.
or is that what you mean by dissembling?

> But I do see the forward reference to www.dnsbl.us.sorbs.net. has been 
> changed to 64.124.52.230 (Bungi.com---Dave Rand, co-founder of MAPS)

i think that's a uunet block.  which they got from arin.  is that what you
mean by conspiracy?