Yeah I remember. The net will just route around the problem.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html
I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.
But I do realize that they won't have Internet service in the camps,
anyway so it won't matter to me.
Highlights:
"The federal government would have �absolute power� to shut down the
Internet ... figurative �kill switch� to seize control of the world wide
web ..." [Web = Internet]
Jay Rockefeller: �Would it had been better if we�d have never invented
the Internet?� [Is thid pile on Al Gore Month?]
"The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the
bill..."
CNN ran a mock up attack to the USA infrastructure with some reps of the government.
The stuff was flawed in many ways, but I think the outcome of it, after each representative of the government arguing what the president can do and cannot do, was to solve the issue, the infrastructure providers needed to be involved, and asked "nicely" to help fix the problem, and not raided with a kill switch threat...or army personnel taking over all the knobs...
Every thing in that RFC from enabling freedom of speech to high volumes
of untaxed dollars is anathema to the current administration.
And yeah, that is politics and not BGP fine tuning.
But if we don't take an interest in what they are doing, BGP isn't going
to matter much.
So, yes, this is a call to look at the layer 10 stuff a bit.
If it isn't already too late.
I've said my piece, moderators. Stand down.
Maybe he has the power to switch it off
- but only cn-nic has the power to reboot the hardware
they sold us 
I am glad AX25 and AMPR.ORG even work without tcp/ip and IPv6
and they will continue to do even on solar power and batteries.
Don't ever ask me to take my antennas down again.
Cheers Peter (Dl2FBA) and Karin
Larry Sheldon wrote:
look like like they are trying to squeeze both ends.
http://www.crn.com/networking/225700593;jsessionid=IR3YB1SGLW2BHQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN
Unfortunately, I think Vint was a little optimistic there, and failed
to guess at the impact the financial collapse was going to have
on our rate of innovation and progress:
"By 2008 we should have a well-functioning
Earth-Mars network that serves as a nascent backbone of an inter-
planetary system of Internets - InterPlaNet is a network of
Internets!"
He also seemed to miss one of the really, REALLY important points;
if "Internet is for everyone" were really true, then IPv6 adoption should
have been one of his driving points. After all with a world population of
7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only
4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
But on the whole, other than being a bit dated at this point, it's
still an inspiring read.
Matt
I read "Internet is for everyone" a bit beyond IP address. When I worked in
the south pacific (1996-1998) we had challenges bringing Internet to
residences because Internet was considered "for the wealthy". It took my
colleagues and I a long time to break down this barrier. I have seen
language barriers as another reason why Internet is not adopted in many
places and thanks to IDN we can see this adoption increase.
Although Vint doesn't call out IPv6 in this RFC he does talk about
supporting work in the IETF, IAB etc and IPv6 work has come out of such
dedication by many folks on this list. There are other challenges yet to
tackle when it comes to making the Internet available to everyone e.g.
Privacy. There are still folks who don't "trust" the internet so will not
use it, for them we need to build a trustworthy internet.
I do agree with your point that IPv6 is important and more important
considering the Internet's explosive growth.
Zaid
In article <AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes
After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses, unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.
What's the average household size, especially in developing countries. And does "everyone" have access, if their home does?
From: Roland Perry [mailto:lists@internetpolicyagency.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:11 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet Kill Switch.In article
<AANLkTimTdz5UO8v8ObC7CXgmNODAHqzjaHQbEtMuwuny@mail.gmail.com>,
Matthew
Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> writes
>After all with a world population of 7 billion, you certainly can't
>have "Internet [...] for everyone" with only 4 billion IP addresses,
>unless you put a *lot* of NAT in place.What's the average household size, especially in developing countries.
And does "everyone" have access, if their home does?
--
Roland Perry
[Tomas L. Byrnes] The issue is more that everyone who DOES have access
has more than one device, and that many of those devices move around. I
won't get into the "NAT breaks the Internet" war, but it certainly does
limit the type of applications you can run, or at the very least makes
network provisioning, operations and maintenance much more complex than
a non-natted network.
I'm guessing that when the last of us olde fartes have have died off and
each person on the planet (on average) is associated with seven
addressable devices* and all of the applications in use have been
designed and implemented to operate over NAT connections, only the
historians (as a maximum) will be interested in the technology that
broke the Internet.
* every now and again I write something like that, and wonder, as I am
now, if the number I grabbed out of thin air is "reasonable" (what ever
that turns out to mean).
Count with me now (note--I see "addressable" as bigger than "IP
addressable. I'm not sure what that means, except that I don't have
work out the technology in use in cases where I don't know how they are
addressable, just that they are.)
On the kitchen table.
Lap-top computer,
wireless (not how the Brits won that one after all) mouse,
portable ("wireless") telephone,
Blackberry (4 addresses?)
Enroute from here to the world.
Two wiffy terminals,
Cable "router" (at least two addresses),
Cable terminal. (Maybe more?)
Also involved in the house.
Wife's Laptop,
Wife's desk-top,
Wife's Blackberry,
My desk-top,
A file-server,
Six other addressable portable telephone sets
Four TV sets,
Two garage-door openers,
A light switch,
Two Ford Explorers.
We don't have any exotics like addressable ovens, refrigerators, or
soft-drink machines.
Yeah, it's scary.
"Issues with IP Address Sharing"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02