[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 13:29:29 CET 2011
1. As a post mortem 2. To possibly stop those same entities from acquiring v6 blocks? On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > Since IPv4 is going to run out anyway, what difference does "extend lots > of effort to gain a few month" make here? > > I can see and share the desire to stop criminals using network resources, > but the argument about "the big problem is waste of scarce resources" > just doesn't fly with me - as it will not make a big difference one > way or the other. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]