At 08:16 AM 3/4/2006 +0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> On 3-mrt-2006, at 11:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> The term LIR is used in IPv6 allocation policy in all regions
>
>no
>
Hmm...sure looks like it to me
http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/ipv6.html
2.4 A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR t
> ---Original Message---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
> Sent: 14 Feb '06 13:10
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:35:19 PST, Tony Hain said:
> > Rather than sit back and complain about the results, why not try to
> > synchronize meeting ti
> ---Original Message---
> From: Christopher L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: IRS goes IPv6!
> Sent: 14 Feb '06 08:31
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > I Ar Es,
> >
> > At least they have received the 2610:30::/32 allocation from ARIN.
> > Lets
> ---Original Message---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Addressing versus Routing (Was: Deploying IPv6 in a datacenter)
> Sent: 22 Dec '05 03:55
>
>
> The RIRs have not made any decisions yet about offering
> geotop addresses, but 7/8 of the IPv6 address space has
> b
---Original Message---
> From: Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SWIP and Rwhois in the Real World
> Sent: 06 Sep '05 15:55
>
>
> > "william" == william(at)elan net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> william> The above line is as clear as it gets (if the other t
At 02:31 PM 5/20/2005 -0400, Christopher Woodfield wrote:
>
>As far as answering the "First Goal" of the article, I really don't
>see much here that isn't handled today by route registries, except
>for the TLS certificate stuff. Not sure how much security that adds,
>practically; how often d
---Original Message---
> From: "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: The power of default configurations
> Sent: 06 Apr 2005 14:00:05
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > adding more. oh and as long as you're considering whether to restrict
> > things to your LAN/campu
---Original Message---
> From: "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
> Sent: 24 Mar 2005 12:20:08
>
> At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote:
>
> >I agree, I'd certainly like to see more p
>From: Michael.Dillon
>Date: Thu Mar 24 11:34:52 2005
>
>
>
>> The other consequence is that the membership takes on the
>> responsibility for ARIN's actions. Not the staff's actions, but
>> ARIN's actions. If t
