On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:37:09 +0200, Sean Doran said: > If we can make that last assumption -- that any globally announced > holes blown into a CIDR-style prefix have an OK from the "owner" > of the TLA -- then surely those holes and anything abstracted by > using logical connectivity rather than announcing longer prefixes > count as "restricting the address space". After reading the NANOG mailing list for a while, it's becoming apparent that often, you can't even assume that a hole blown into a prefix has an OK from the site *announcing* the hole, much less the owner of the aggregation.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Rick H Wesson
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Anthony Atkielski
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Fred Baker
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Eric Brunner
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Keith Moore
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Eric Brunner
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Sean Doran
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Mike Truskowski
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Andy Fletcher
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Sean Doran
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Anthony Atkielski
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Sean Doran
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Thomas Narten
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Sean Doran
- Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion Sean Doran