So just because Google returned some hits on that phrase means that the government gives Internet2 money? Did you bother reading any of these articles? For example, the first one says
"Government funding opportunities provided by the National Science Foundation and NASA seek to link research across many disciplines to the development of better networks, wireless networks, and new kinds of multipurpose network devices. "
and the second one says
"In addition, Internet2 staff participates in peer-review panels, meets regularly with government funding agencies to anticipate and respond to research trends and priorities, and partners with other organizations to catalyze discussion and de?ne solutions. Internet2 has provided technical assistance, letters of support, and a grants cookbook to support Internet2 members as they respond to funding opportunities."
So yes, Internet2 will work with the government and Universities that will be getting government money for projects that will utilize (and pay for that utilization of) the network, but Internet2 as a corporation doesn't receive government money directly.
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Internet2 but not an employee.
I think it is more likely that DWDM equipment allows fiber someone already owns to be used more efficiently. I don't know of any company that gets rid of fiber they have because they put DWDM on a couple of strands. Its like saying that there are more video games on the market because we all have more free time now days. Sure, DWDM lets you cram more data down a particular strand of fiber, but the need for capacity is increasing too, and laying new fiber is very expensive (especially transoceanic fiber).
It doesn't matter really. A 192.168 address will get translated via NAT or PAT to a 'real' Internet address, which should have reverse resolution.
Ofcourse if you are using 192.168.x.x in an enterprise setting, you are more than welcome to set up reverse resolution for a local view. Ofcourse, no one else on the Internet will see that view, but its still good to have for internal use.
It is the responsiblity of the service provider to set up the DNS for addresses it hands out. For example if you are in a coffee shop and get a dhcp address of 10.10.10.10, it is the administrator of that IP who is responsible for setting reverse DNS to wireless-10.example.com and making sure wirless-10.example.com resolves back to 10.10.10.10. It is irrelevant that you have a dyndns.org address that also points to 10.10.10.10.
What is not so irrelevant is that you will not be able to send email to anyone who uses any of the DNS Black lists that has 10.10.10.10 listed because it is a dynamically assigned address. The proper behavior for sending mail is the your MUA should be using an MTA that allows 10.10.10.10 to connect to it and relay mail.
it ALREADY suggests crimes commited over the internet are under federal juristriction
Precisely who's juristiction would you want Internet crimes to be under? The states? Interstate commerce laws make this impractical. Or would you have the interstate commerce laws not apply to the internet? I got an idea, lets appoint a working group to review the laws that exsist and... Oh wait! They already did that. Or maybe you would have no law enforced on the internet? A sort of criminal haven I guess...
it ALREADY says that content will have to be policed in the future
I read the thing for the fifth or so time now, and I still can't find that part... could you quote it out for me please?
Besides, just because something is badly written doesn't mean it was badly written for a malicious purpose. It just means that the person who phrased it could be an idiot.
I am a die hard keep-the-government-as-far-from-the-internet-as-po ssible person, but its time to face certain facts. There are millions and millions of 'normal' citizens (voting citizens) on the net, as well as an increasing number of people who use the net for illegal activities for the precise reason it is a legal grey area. It is true that the US does not own the internet, but the alternative, which is do nothing, is not an option anymore.
I don't want to give the impression that I am not nervous about this, because I am. One of the 'tools' the working group might (already have?) decided on is a back door to encryption cause by golly we can't let criminals communicate in a way we can't monitor. And this frightens me. There is alot of potential here for exploitation, but at the moment it is just that: potential. The real battle comes (and the opportunity for us to fight this will come) when the report is released and laws are attempted to be formed from its findings.
Slashdot Mirror
This should help fuel your paranoid delusions.
So just because Google returned some hits on that phrase means that the government gives Internet2 money? Did you bother reading any of these articles? For example, the first one says
"Government funding opportunities provided by the National Science Foundation and NASA seek to link research across many disciplines to the development of better networks, wireless networks, and new kinds of multipurpose network devices. "
and the second one says
"In addition, Internet2 staff participates in peer-review panels, meets regularly with government funding agencies to anticipate and respond to research trends and priorities, and partners with other organizations to catalyze discussion and de?ne solutions. Internet2 has provided technical assistance, letters of support, and a grants cookbook to support Internet2 members as they respond to funding opportunities."
So yes, Internet2 will work with the government and Universities that will be getting government money for projects that will utilize (and pay for that utilization of) the network, but Internet2 as a corporation doesn't receive government money directly.
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Internet2 but not an employee.
I think it is more likely that DWDM equipment allows fiber someone already owns to be used more efficiently. I don't know of any company that gets rid of fiber they have because they put DWDM on a couple of strands. Its like saying that there are more video games on the market because we all have more free time now days. Sure, DWDM lets you cram more data down a particular strand of fiber, but the need for capacity is increasing too, and laying new fiber is very expensive (especially transoceanic fiber).
It doesn't matter really. A 192.168 address will get translated via NAT or PAT to a 'real' Internet address, which should have reverse resolution.
Ofcourse if you are using 192.168.x.x in an enterprise setting, you are more than welcome to set up reverse resolution for a local view. Ofcourse, no one else on the Internet will see that view, but its still good to have for internal use.
It is the responsiblity of the service provider to set up the DNS for addresses it hands out. For example if you are in a coffee shop and get a dhcp address of 10.10.10.10, it is the administrator of that IP who is responsible for setting reverse DNS to wireless-10.example.com and making sure wirless-10.example.com resolves back to 10.10.10.10. It is irrelevant that you have a dyndns.org address that also points to 10.10.10.10.
What is not so irrelevant is that you will not be able to send email to anyone who uses any of the DNS Black lists that has 10.10.10.10 listed because it is a dynamically assigned address. The proper behavior for sending mail is the your MUA should be using an MTA that allows 10.10.10.10 to connect to it and relay mail.
it ALREADY suggests crimes commited over the internet are under federal juristriction
o ssible person, but its time to face certain facts. There are millions and millions of 'normal' citizens (voting citizens) on the net, as well as an increasing number of people who use the net for illegal activities for the precise reason it is a legal grey area. It is true that the US does not own the internet, but the alternative, which is do nothing, is not an option anymore.
Precisely who's juristiction would you want Internet crimes to be under? The states? Interstate commerce laws make this impractical. Or would you have the interstate commerce laws not apply to the internet? I got an idea, lets appoint a working group to review the laws that exsist and... Oh wait! They already did that.
Or maybe you would have no law enforced on the internet? A sort of criminal haven I guess...
it ALREADY says that content will have to be policed in the future
I read the thing for the fifth or so time now, and I still can't find that part... could you quote it out for me please?
Besides, just because something is badly written doesn't mean it was badly written for a malicious purpose. It just means that the person who phrased it could be an idiot.
I am a die hard keep-the-government-as-far-from-the-internet-as-p
I don't want to give the impression that I am not nervous about this, because I am. One of the 'tools' the working group might (already have?) decided on is a back door to encryption cause by golly we can't let criminals communicate in a way we can't monitor. And this frightens me. There is alot of potential here for exploitation, but at the moment it is just that: potential. The real battle comes (and the opportunity for us to fight this will come) when the report is released and laws are attempted to be formed from its findings.
This would be the million nerd march then?
;)