[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Jun 23 13:17:54 CEST 2004
Hi, On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 08:03:38PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > With your fallacy denied, why do you replay the well known > fallacy of NAT that NAT is transparent to the upper layers? Please STOP cc: ing the address-policy working group on e-mails that are purely about protocol design decisions and problems. Your opinions about the address policy are known by now, and these e-mails do not contribute further to the discussion at hand. Gert Doering, speaking as APWG Co-Chair. -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]