This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Thu Mar 20 17:24:28 CET 2008
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:18:15PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote: > Bill, > > [ Apologies for the following rant... ] > > So, as far as I can tell, the "one size fits all" idea is an attempt > to further the IETF anti-NAT jihad, and has nothing to do with > anyone's operational needs. :-( snicker... :) a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the entire IPv4 space. Michaels claim that its going to be a tough "squeeze" to shoehorn an operational network into that small number of bits is enough to make me snort the diet coke out my nose in the morning. Humourous and a bit painful at the same time. --bill > > -- > Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]