Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points

• To:
• From: Arjan < >
• Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST)
• Cc: "Gert Doering, Netmaster" < >
  < >
  "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" < >
  < >
• Delivered-received: (qmail 8027 invoked by uid 66); 10 May 2001 19:01:13 -0000
• In-reply-message-id: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0105102103210.46472-100000@localhost>
• Organisation: Inventionz.org

To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
To: David R Huberman huberman@localhost
To: <200105101738.VAA93346@localhost>



Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is
enough...

Thanks :)

On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:

> To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
> To: postmaster1@localhost
>
>
> To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
> To: postmaster1@localhost
>
>
> To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
> To: postmaster1@localhost
>
>
> To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
> To: postmaster1@localhost
>
>
> To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
> To: <20010510154913.C3919@localhost>
>
>
> > But they need connectivity for things like member
> > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those
> > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the
> > same IP prefix.
>
> I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert
> said it far better than I did!
>
> For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between
> address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange
> participants and space utilized for other purposes.
>
> /david
>
>

-- 
GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++

• Post To The List: