[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 ]
Sylvain Vallerot
sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net
Mon Jun 13 17:15:37 CEST 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 09/06/2016 11:43, Denis Fondras wrote: > I fully agree with you but it seems some think that prefixes from last-/8 is not > intended to be used and distributed as we used to. Which I can comprehend, I agree with this : remaining IPs are not intended to be used as we used to. But they are still meant to be distributed to end users, aren't they ? Best regards, Sylvain -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAldezhgACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGuaAEAm9Z8unbCXbXSIpw+9pxG2ce9 lBFdNK+hp572a3zmuIQA/1ibyaANpmeapUtLCmRp6ioSTt8YW5TbdQvQohM+D7NR =+T7o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- 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 ]