Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
mark at viviotech.net
Thu Jan 27 14:26:58 CST 2011
What I don't understand is I can only guess they must have a IT team.
And Maybe even 1 or more people that view this list. Why don't they just
talk to there own staff about the issues? Maybe one of the IT guess saw
the issues talked about the articles and contacted the news team about
the bad info. I donno. I agree they kind of did a poor job on this.
If you work at FOX maybe you should help get the news guys on the right
On 1/27/2011 11:51 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra at baylink.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:06 PM
>> To: NANOG
>> Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com>
>>> To be clear, FOX screwed this up big time, but that doesn't mean we
>>> all need to get out our personal/political pitchforks and run them
>>> of town. Take your Ritalin. :-)
>> Fox didn't screw up, for a change, and Vint's quote appears in many
>> other news sources. Apparently, I'm the only one on Nanog who knows
>> about this new thing called The Google. :-)
>> Thinking that Fox "News" is not a reputable news source is not, indeed,
>> an opinion attributable *solely* to non-Republicans, and indeed, it's
>> to prove in a documentary, non-partisan fashion.
> [WES] Don't kid yourself, defending a "reputable news organization" for not
> properly checking their facts on a technical story before publishing is
> politically motivated too, especially when you try to imply that being willing
> to call out inaccurate (technical) info in the news is somehow related to
> one's political party.
> The article that everyone is causing everyone to make fun of Fox news for says
> nothing about Vint.
> Fox news has posted two separate articles, both of which have been factually
> They at least corrected the first one - "Editors' Note: An earlier version of
> this story erroneously described an IP address as consisting of four digits,
> rather than four sets of digits, and inaccurately described the IP address.
> This story has been updated to reflect the correction."
> But this gem still exists in the first article: "Web developers have
> compensated for this problem by creating IPv6". At least there's *probably*
> some web developers at IETF that might have had a hand in creating IPv6, so
> that one's not technically incorrect...
> The second one from several months ago is still borked:
> "IPv4, ... the unique 32-digit number used to identify each computer, website
> or internet-connected device. ... The solution to the problem is IPv6, which
> uses a 128-digit address." So, first it was 32 digits, then it was 4 digits...
> FWIW, Marketplace (on NPR) did a story the other night too. It wasn't
> necessarily incorrect, but it was so dumbed down that they managed to talk
> about IPv4 exhaustion without mentioning the words "IPv4" or "IPv6"
> Wes George
More information about the NANOG