nanog mailing list archives
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
From: Joe Abley <jabley () ca afilias info>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:53:53 -0500
On 10-Oct-2006, at 12:01, David W. Hankins wrote:
But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly not to fulfill.
It's not so weird when you realise that the notation adopted has an impact on other IETF work (RPSL is the obvious example that springs to mind).
Joe
Current thread:
- that 4byte ASN you were considering... bmanning (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Randy Bush (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Kevin Loch (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Randy Bush (Oct 10)
- RE: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Neil J. McRae (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Joe Abley (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Michael Shields (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Kevin Loch (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Randy Bush (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... william(at)elan.net (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Henk Uijterwaal (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Michael . Dillon (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Henk Uijterwaal (Oct 10)
- AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Gunther Stammwitz (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Larry Blunk (Oct 10)