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]/
Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
- Previous message (by thread): Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Poul-Henning Kamp
phk at critter.freebsd.dk
Tue Mar 16 18:48:15 CET 1999
In message <009D5362.46E0DF3C.25 at cc.univie.ac.at>, "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACO net" writes: > Taking this one step further, and looking back at what we did with IPv4, > where it would be feasible to say 131.130/16, implying 131.130.0.0/16, > I wonder if it wouldn't again be worthwhile to restrict the use of these > shorthand notations in the Address Registry? There is certainly something to be said for making it easy for programs to parse the registry. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk at FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
- Previous message (by thread): Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]