[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] They're out of IPv4 Addresses!
william.drake at uzh.ch
Mon Sep 17 10:33:12 UTC 2012
Geoff made the same argument on a panel we were on together at the Asia Pacific IGF in Tokyo in July (organized by Kuo Wei). Bob Pepper was on the same panel and his head almost exploded, which if memory serves led to some interesting exchanges. Video and transcripts at http://2012.rigf.asia/videotranscript/ and the session was called The future of Internet : Where we go? and how?
On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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