nanog mailing list archives
Re: Portability of 206 address space
From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog () linux silkroad com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:50:06 -0400 (EDT)
Paul,
The topic is discussed in more detail in draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt:
Interesting that you reference a draft that was opposed by numerous people, and did not reach 'rough concensus', to support a new draft :-) It is like building your house on quicksand.... it is sure to sink into the quick eventually.... As you can see, many of us are engaged in 'contract issues' at the moment .... viz. (Contract and RA) and are not actively commenting on this draft.... but, IMO, it requires 'some work' to move toward an objective engineering document and has obvious bias that is still not technically supported (emotionally supported, yes). If you could contain this discussion, for the moment in the PIER-WG and out of the radar range (i.e. NANOG) for a while it would be appreciated, I think. But then again, you are certainly free to do PIER-WG work in NANOG... but why? Best Regards, Tim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Portability of 206 address space mike (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Bill Manning (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Avi Freedman (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Kim Hubbard (Jun 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Paul Ferguson (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Avi Freedman (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Avi Freedman (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Paul Ferguson (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space @NANOG-LIST (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Paul Ferguson (Jun 03)
- Re: Portability of 206 address space Bill Manning (Jun 03)