[At-Large] They're out of IPv4 Addresses!
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Sun Sep 16 23:49:10 UTC 2012
The best place to go is Geoff's own website <http://www.potaroo.net/> One of his articles does talk about the money shift from the carriers to content service providers. For those who attended his (and my_ session in the APrIGF in Tokyo, this was exactly what he said. (He then spend a bit of time over a breakfast with me the next day, further explaining it.) I"m sure he'd be happy to elaborate.
On 17/09/2012, at 9:04 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>> These are the transcripts (easy reading) of what Geoff Huston said at the
>> APNIC 32 Opening Plenary in Bussan, South Korea. I was in the audience and
>> enjoyed it, see:
>> from IPv4 to IPv6 #Google #NATs #Access ]
> I listened to this in real time....it doesn't contain the theory that holly
> described...neither do the links below.
>> These are links to some of Geoff's papers:
>> - On the Content economy, his views published on his website in 2001,
>> see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2001-06/2001-06-content.html
>> - On Carriage v Content, his views published on his website in July,
>> 2012, see: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-07/carriagevcontent.html
>> He talks briefly about ITRs and ETNO proposal in relation to the ITRs
>>> Hi John
>>> I can't verify Geoff's technical explanation, but he did work for Telstra
>>> as one of their star technical people and he is chief scientist with
>>> And I did use the term carrier but, to be more precise, ISPs in this
>>> country are also carriers - which may not be the case in other
>>> regimes. As to privacy, the other point Geoff makes is that what is
>>> happening is contrary to the Interception legislation - or should be
>>> considered so. The difficulty with privacy legislation (not just in
>>> Australia) is the definition of 'personal information' which is the
>>> lynchpin of whether or not privacy has been breached. Does it include
>>> phone numbers and IP addresses. There are suggested amendments to the
>>> privacy legislation here that would, in essence, include information -
>>> combined with other information, can identify a person (paraphrased) But
>>> one of the privacy issues is how personal information - that which is
>>> protected - is defined.
>>> On 17/09/2012, at 2:42 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>>> As he explains, with NATing, the carriers gain information about what
>>> IP addresses are going where - information they can flog to advertisers.
>>>> This argument makes no sense. A snoopy ISP could as easily collect
>>> information from non-NAT routers as from NAT boxes.
>>>> In Australia, I would have thought that privacy laws would make selling
>>> that kind of information illegal. In the US they use noxious services
>>> phorm to collect and sell info, no NAT needed.
>>>> At-Large mailing list
>>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large