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/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Thu Jun 14 12:32:18 CEST 2007
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote: <snip> > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could >> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal >> infrastructure's. what operators? I cant remember to have seen one operator supporting that point of view. My point of view from a LIR/network point of view etc was that ULA-C could be usefull but without reverse DNS it is useless. Maybe even with reverse DNS we want todo it the correct way by using our netblock we got from RIPE. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger at jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]