[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 17:38:22 CET 2011
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote: > Both could be true, although that would probably be the best choice. However, as we approach the point where obtaining IPv4 address space becomes more difficult I think we will have to accept that individual IPv4 addresses will share role much more frequently. I guess. But the allocation policies, whois requirements etc remain substantially the same for ipv6. We might as well forget, for the moment, that we're talking about a set of IPv4 netblocks in this thread. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]