Owen DeLong wrote :
Do you have any examples of a beneficial purpose for which a company would be
likely to outbid the nefarious purposes for such an address in an open
auction?
I'd be curious to see how much it fetches. I bet $256.
I’m betting running a free public nameserver isn’t going
On May 23, 2015, at 4:17 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I can only think of a few reasons a company would want to spend any amount of
money for a vanity IP address.
Really?
8.8.8.8?
In my (early) experience at APNIC, there was significant interest in vanity
IP addresses, to the
: Idea for 1.2.3.0/24
Oops wrong button :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
Date: Friday, 22 May 2015
Subject: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24
To: David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
Hi David, Everyone
If APNIC were to just
/24
Oops wrong button :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dean Pemberton d...@internetnz.net.nz
Date: Friday, 22 May 2015
Subject: [sig-policy] Idea for 1.2.3.0/24
To: David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
Hi David, Everyone
If APNIC were to just sell this off
Hello Policy SIG,
I have an idea for 1.2.3.0/24 I would like to share with you before submitting
a policy proposal.
Prop-109 properly directed APNIC to use 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 for research
purposes. That leaves one more significant prefix to deal with: 1.2.3.0/24.
It is significant
No worries.
I'm less worried about the use of this prefix than its use 'for good'.
We do have to remember that this prefix is the IP equivalent of 256 barrels
of radioactive waste. Toxic to all who touch them. I'm sure Geoff can give
the exact Geiger counter measurements :)
I'm in favour of
