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]/

[db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Marco d'Itri md at Linux.IT
Fri Sep 10 19:11:53 CEST 2004

On Sep 10, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote:

> >everybody seems to be happy (or
> >tired of it).
> The second option, I would say!
Agreed. I'm definitely not happy with a solution which requires
modifying every inetnum record, and I still would like to know from the
RIPE DB people if my proposal of returning IRT records by default on
inetnum/inetnum6 queries could be considered.

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [7930 aljXJfLaZqCQc]

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] draft agenda (V1) for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 49, Manchester, UK

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]