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] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Jul 22 10:55:22 CEST 2004
On 22-jul-04, at 9:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist 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. Blame the IAB. Apparently, they were the ones who created this mess by frivolously adopting ip6.arpa as a replacement for ip6.int. It staggers the mind that otherwise smart people can make decisions like this. In Dutch we have a saying "those who burn their buttocks must sit on the blisters" (= if you do something stupid you have to suffer the consequences).
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]