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] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Wed Apr 15 21:52:29 CEST 2009
Hello Peter, > For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and > second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been > dedicated > for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see > RFC 3330). I am curious why the RIPE NCC is asked for this /24. If IANA has provided 192.0.2/24 in the past, why can't IANA provide another /24? It would require an RFC, but isn't that the right place to do this? Just trying to get all the background information :) Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]