[address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Dec 3 07:45:27 CET 2008
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com> wrote: > Elisa Jasinska wrote: >> I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events >> with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to >> re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why >> should the NCC be a special case and no one else? > > perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]