nanog mailing list archives
Re: 206.82.160.0/22
From: Sean Doran <smd () icp net>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:05:03 -0400
I would be very interested in hearing people's opions
?regarding this aspect of current allocation guidelines. It's a joke. Moreover, it's a stupid joke that will wreck the value of registries as sources of accurate information. If the contact person or an officer of the contact organization tells me that a prefix is now to be used by another party, whether it's bought or traded or inherited or sold or whatever, I don't care, I'll route it, provided it's aggregatable into something reasonably short. And if the registries don't update to the new contacts, so what? Sean.
Current thread:
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22, (continued)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Hans-Werner Braun (Sep 23)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Ehud Gavron (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Dave Siegel (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Ehud Gavron (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 24)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Tony Li (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Nick Williams (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 David Conrad (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Guy Middleton (Sep 25)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Sean Doran (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Geoff Huston (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Noel Chiappa (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Geoff Huston (Sep 26)
- Re: 206.82.160.0/22 Robert Elz (Sep 26)