nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
From: Eliot Lear <lear () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 10:29:57 -0700
Randy is right. We don't know both sides. That having been said... Ralph Doncaster wrote:
What it tells me is I should have wasted enough space to consume 8 /24s long ago, so I could get a /20 directly from ARIN.
Right. What ISPs need to realize is that whatever benefit that is gained from provider-based addressing can be negated by people not having faith that they can transition from one set of addresses to another. Being excessively strict benefits no one. And so each side needs to be reasonable. Otherwise we'll have end customers going to ARIN -- or EBay.
In other words, this might be another instance of a frog in the pot. Eliot
Current thread:
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe, (continued)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Andy Walden (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 31)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Tony Hain (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe bmanning (May 31)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Marshall Eubanks (May 30)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 06)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe Eliot Lear (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Daniel Golding (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Ralph Doncaster (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Scott Granados (May 06)
- RE: IP renumbering timeframe Ralph Doncaster (May 06)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David Schwartz (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David Schwartz (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David R Huberman (May 09)
- Re: IP renumbering timeframe David Schwartz (May 09)