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]/

[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)

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

Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Thu Jul 22 09:58:31 CEST 2004

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-07-22, at 09.43, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 and ip6.int is gone
> for me.

I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. Maintaining two 
reverse threes will create more problems than it will solve.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQP9zq6arNKXTPFCVEQI3kACgg64aymyVhewNR5xZqxBqyf+eeZMAoIgM
8UGVR6tAuhsVPUBZQOJSCxqc
=y9eV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)

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

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]