On 31 May 2012, at 22:51, Joseph Gersch wrote:
Ray and Ondrej,
Dan Massey and I have been busy putting together a presentation for NANOG
which is in Vancouver next week. We plan on having many discussions with
operators and designers there. After we get enough feedback, we will get
Ray and Ondrej,
Dan Massey and I have been busy putting together a presentation for NANOG
which is in Vancouver next week. We plan on having many discussions with
operators and designers there. After we get enough feedback, we will get back
to you. I know this is later than you wanted,
Hi Joseph,
since I am not sure if you understood my point (I am not sure if I was able
to understand it myself :), I am summarizing it to the mailing list.
I like the direction of your work, but I miss a way how to put more stuff under
the named prefix.
I would like you to update RFC2317
On 30 Mar 2012, at 12:09, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi Joseph,
since I am not sure if you understood my point (I am not sure if I was able
to understand it myself :), I am summarizing it to the mailing list.
I like the direction of your work, but I miss a way how to put more stuff
under
the
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:19:43AM +, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 30 Mar 2012, at 12:09, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
Hi Joseph,
since I am not sure if you understood my point (I am not sure if I was able
to understand it myself :), I am summarizing it to the mailing list.
I like the
On 3/30/2012 10:19 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
With the current scheme it's possible to delegate longer prefixes, and this
is a necessary feature.
The stuff Dan was saying about two alternate representations concerns me,
though. As written, by default:
192.168.64/18 is 1.0.m.168.192
but
