I’m pretty sure he’s not talking about that, but rather about ARIN NRPM Section 4.10 (which happens to be 23.128.0.0/10)
Owen > On Oct 20, 2015, at 08:05 , Hadenfeldt, Andrew C > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m missing some context… RFC6598 (100.64.0.0/10)? > > -Andy > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:57 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Transition /10 > > > Any reason why at this point we shouldn't transition the transition /10 to a > last /N like policy to more align with others? It does seem to be reasonable > and fair. It seems like it was a mistake to not set aside the /8. > > Thoughts? > > Best, > > -M< > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender > by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any > attachments. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
