[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Thu Jul 22 10:58:31 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-07-22, at 10.55, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 22-jul-04, at 9:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >>> But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 and ip6.int is gone >>> for me. > >> I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. Maintaining two >> reverse threes will create more problems than it will solve. > > Blame the IAB. Apparently, they were the ones who created this mess by > frivolously adopting ip6.arpa as a replacement for ip6.int. It > staggers the mind that otherwise smart people can make decisions like > this. > > In Dutch we have a saying "those who burn their buttocks must sit on > the blisters" (= if you do something stupid you have to suffer the > consequences). "Two wrongs doesn't make a right". :-) I don't know why we ended up in .int to start with. But I guess there is a story behind that, that someone will tell me real soon now(tm). :-) Still, there is no merit to have two trees and we have known this change would come for a long time. And now that even IANA seems to be "IPv6 capable" we should just move on. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQP+BuqarNKXTPFCVEQIj4QCgpJ7w2srZtSiHQSerQFXjYVvwfxEAoOeE nZDDKnW8kc/sr/O8xBzzFYD/ =lePP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]