how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
sascha at eirconnect.net
Wed Apr 6 20:34:07 CEST 2005
On Wed 06 Apr 2005 14:44, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > RIPE must not be seen to be a cabal of ISPs trying to impose > a certain business model through anti-competitive policies. Thank you. This sentence should be inserted, verbatim, into the RIPE statutes. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]