[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Jun 7 01:14:52 CEST 2016
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at v4escrow.net> wrote: > > Hi, > On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >>> On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Why are we talking about 185./8 only? >>> >> We are not. You might be though. :-) > Why are we still talking about this proposal? I was under the impression that it will be withdrawn soon after the RIPE Meeting. I was only explaining what resources are covered by the current policy (ie last /8). Nothing to do with 2016-03. That proposal’s deader than Elvis. Not you obviously, the other one who played Vegas a lot in the 70s. :-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]