nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 gluelessness
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian () creative net au>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:22:42 +0900
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
It would seem to me that a middle ground is in order. Contact the TLD's. Send them two e-mails, and two faxes. But all of those should contain "you have 30 days to object, or we will move forward anyway".
You'd think there'd be a SLA in place. Agreeing to run part of the internet infrastructure implies you'll respond to certain requests within a given timeframe. Or am I simply asking too much? :) Adrian
Current thread:
- Re: v6 gluelessness, (continued)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Randy Bush (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Randy Bush (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Randy Bush (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Bruce Campbell (Jan 19)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Edward Lewis (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Leo Bicknell (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness Adrian Chadd (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 18)
- Re: v6 gluelessness bmanning (Jan 19)
- Re: v6 gluelessness David Conrad (Jan 19)
- Re: v6 gluelessness bmanning (Jan 19)
- Message not available
- NetworkSolutions - Was: Re: v6 gluelessness David Freedman (Jan 23)
- Re: NetworkSolutions - Was: Re: v6 gluelessness Randy Bush (Jan 23)
- Re: NetworkSolutions - Was: Re: v6 gluelessness Christopher Morrow (Jan 23)
- Re: NetworkSolutions - Was: Re: v6 gluelessness Randy Bush (Jan 23)
- Re: NetworkSolutions - Was: Re: v6 gluelessness Leo Bicknell (Jan 23)
- Re: NetworkSolutions - Was: Re: v6 gluelessness Matt Larson (Jan 24)