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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pim van Pelt
pim at bit.nl
Fri Apr 23 19:38:27 CEST 2004
| > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If | > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm | > amazed. | | Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas | that might need that many. IPv6. I do not see any good in allocating even one /8 in additional private address space. -- Met vriendelijke groet, BIT BV / Ing P.B. van Pelt PBVP1-RIPE (PGPKEY-4DCA7E5E)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]