Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
-
To: Randy Bush <>
-
From: Gert Doering <>
-
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:26:21 +0100
-
Cc: Gert Doering <>, Jørgen Hovland <>, ,
-
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
-
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=PFSoFD6UAc84/C/EUe5FqXyXLIwOL8KTEHkZmaFVDlg79bxdnY0a4G4NbHkJquDk ;
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:52:53PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > That's the point. DENIC isn't doing this for themselves. They
> > do this for *you*
>
> in a peer2peer or client/server world, this statement is fatuous
So we abandon DNS, because it's a model from the last century?
(Now that would be a policy proposal for the DNS WG, not for address
policy -- but I'm all for it, this whole hassle with "finding a free
domain name" and "going to court with name right holders" and so on
is really annoying)
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
