[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Antonio Querubin
tony at lava.net
Mon Mar 1 20:12:58 CET 2010
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it existed, you are > dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run network. > > Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of the money to keep > the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or operational aspects of the > network. I think DISA and DoD would argue about that claim with regard to NIPRNet and SIPRNet :) Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony at lava.net
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]