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]/
[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 17:38:22 CET 2011
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote: > Both could be true, although that would probably be the best choice. However, as we approach the point where obtaining IPv4 address space becomes more difficult I think we will have to accept that individual IPv4 addresses will share role much more frequently. I guess. But the allocation policies, whois requirements etc remain substantially the same for ipv6. We might as well forget, for the moment, that we're talking about a set of IPv4 netblocks in this thread. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]