nanog mailing list archives
Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 13:26:09 -0700
No, the problem is solved, just not widely deployed. There is no requirement to delegate on octet bounds anymore. --billIf we are talking about the DNS issue, I would like to read about the solution. Where is it? paul
i fwd'd you the so-far-unreleased draft at 3:49AM yesterday.
Current thread:
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc, (continued)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Vince Fuller (May 17)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Louis A. Mamakos (May 17)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Chris Chaundy (May 17)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Louis A. Mamakos (May 17)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc bmanning (May 17)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Vince Fuller (May 17)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Vadim Antonov (May 18)
- Draft internic ip allocation doc Daniel Karrenberg (May 18)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc bmanning (May 18)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Paul Mockapetris (May 18)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Paul A Vixie (May 18)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Paul Mockapetris (May 18)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Sean Doran (May 18)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Paul Ferguson (May 20)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Geoff Huston (May 19)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc peter (May 19)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Jeremy Porter (May 19)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Peter Kline (May 19)
- Re: Draft internic ip allocation doc Vince Fuller (May 17)