[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie
Wed Jun 27 01:25:30 CEST 2007
On 26 Jun 2007, at 19:00, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Also that avoids any need for ULA-C as everybody is covered. Non sequitur. Your conclusion may be true; unless you choose to expose your logic, it is unproven, and may even be just wishful thinking. I'ld really like to see a conclusion (for or against, I don't care) about ULA-C which didn't involve religious convictions. That probably belongs in another thread. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin IT Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070627/1fd95f12/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]