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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Wed Apr 6 15:09:39 CEST 2005
* Elmar K. Bins: >> Getting 200 real customers is one acceptable circumtance. > > I believe the "200" poses a problem for most of the typical early > adopters, who are not among the Tier 1 folks, but in Tiers 2 and 3 > (if you think in tiered terms). Well, if the "200" is a problem, just go ahead and open a bot shell provider (or some kind of reselling service for the actual BSPs). Using address space for the sole purpose of vanity host names is completely legit. 8-)
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]