nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internic address allocation policy
From: George Herbert <gherbert () crl com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 13:01:19 -0800
Looks like a double standard to me... The same argument could be placed for any subnet not on an 8,16, or 24 bit bound.
Yes and no. Technical limitations in things like in-addr name service make moving things with any boundary in the last byte very difficult, but things with any boundary before it possible (and a boundary on a byte much easier). -george
Current thread:
- Re: Internic address allocation policy, (continued)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Vadim Antonov (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Vadim Antonov (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy John A. Russo - Geonet Communications (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy John A. Russo - Geonet Communications (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Jeff . Ogden (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Jeffrey I. Schiller (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Bill Manning (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Bill Manning (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Paul Traina (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Bill Manning (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 21)