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] (no subject)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Call for Nominations to the ICANN Board of Directors
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] (no subject)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thilo Salmon
salmon at netzquadrat.de
Mon Jan 26 19:57:23 CET 2004
Hello everyone, when RIPE received 82/8 from IANA about a year ago, there has been a discussion on potential routing issues due to ancient filters on this list. That thread went far enough to raise the question whether or not subnets in question should be returned. Getting my daily fix of tech rants I noticed this issue appears to have resurfaced in the mainstream media at http://heise.de/newsticker/data/hob-26.01.04-000/ (German) http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://heise.de/newsticker/data/hob-26.01.04-000/ (Google translation) We received a prefix from within this network which we plan to use soon and I am now wondering whether or not we can expect to run into problems. Going through a number of looking glasses I could see my announcement just fine. But then, ISPs who offer lookging glass services are probably more likely to keep their filters up to date. Has anybody used 82/8 subnets and gathered real life experience on how they route? I'd much rather be prepared, if this turns into a teaching assignment. Thilo
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Call for Nominations to the ICANN Board of Directors
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] (no subject)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]