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] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Dec 3 07:45:27 CET 2008
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com> wrote: > Elisa Jasinska wrote: >> I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events >> with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to >> re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why >> should the NCC be a special case and no one else? > > perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]