Total of 74 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Nov 23 00:53:07 EST 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
16.22% | 12 | 15.79% |97125 | farina...@gmail.com
8.11% |6 | 5.06% |31138 | j...@mercury.l
> I would be a bit nervous about dedicating another /3 for unproven
> use. There's a risk of it ending up unusable like Class E. So
> if we are going to do this, doing it inside 2000::/3 seems a
> bit safer to me.
So what if we could say the use is simply to assign addresses out of this block
tha
Date:Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:50:40 +1100
From:Geoff Huston
Message-ID: <08fcd406-f556-4f7e-ba98-9591d161a...@apnic.net>
| With respect Robert, I disagree with your line of argument and I disagree
| with your assertion that a reference to an existing RFC is "bogus unde
Hi Roger,
On 22/11/2012 09:04, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> Make it an allocation for EIDs and ILNP can use it too.
>
> Somehow I hear a voice in the back of my head asking if we're talking
> about starting to use another big IPv6 block than
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> Make it an allocation for EIDs and ILNP can use it too.
Somehow I hear a voice in the back of my head asking if we're talking
about starting to use another big IPv6 block than 2000::/3 for the two
above mention usage?
2000::/3 for our cur
