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] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Wed Jun 23 13:10:54 CEST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-23, at 13.03, Masataka Ohta wrote: > >> Based on this it was proposed to concentrate on solutions that are >> either "fat-ip" or wedgelayers at layer "3.5". > > So, it is simply wrong. I am simply referring the conclusions of the interim meeting on the request of the WG co-chair. Values of this being right or wrong, or other comments on various proposals to the multi6 problem belong in the multi6 WG. Not here (which I am sure the WG chairs will agree with). - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNllQaarNKXTPFCVEQIiTwCdGGiZVRjT5YA/LoyJU/H/+1KGVRYAoMWv OfxW6NYkpRMc66u8JunqmgL/ =1/8r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]