nanog mailing list archives

Re: Statements against new.net?

From: Stephen Stuart <stuart () mfnx net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:53:08 -0800

IIRC, there was an "issue" around the assignment of 16.1.16.1; I don't
think lawyers had been invented back then, so the scope of the scandal
remained relatively small.

(The coolness factor was the binary representation, of course.)


Sorry, it was the hex representation, of course.

Stephen

Current thread:

RE: Statements against new.net?, (continued)
- - - RE: Statements against new.net? Jeff Workman (Mar 16)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Simon Higgs (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Simon Higgs (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Simon Higgs (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mathew Butler (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mathew Butler (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (Mar 14)
  - RE: Statements against new.net? Vadim Antonov (Mar 14)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Stephen Stuart (Mar 14)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Hank Nussbacher (Mar 15)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Stephen Stuart (Mar 15)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Scott Francis (Mar 15)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Patrick Greenwell (Mar 15)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Scott Francis (Mar 15)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Adrian Chadd (Mar 16)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Vadim Antonov (Mar 16)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Eric A. Hall (Mar 16)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Simon Higgs (Mar 17)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Mark Kosters (Mar 28)
  - Message not available
    - RE: Statements against new.net? Ben Browning (Mar 15)
    - Re: Statements against new.net? Scott Francis (Mar 15)

(Thread continues...)