nanog mailing list archives
RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
From: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen () vii com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:04:08 -0700 (MST)
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:
You should ask for at least a /16. If a cable TV company with no subscribers can get most of a /8, I would think a school district would have some clout. (This of course assumes that you have real students and not virtual students :-)
now, correct me if I am wrong, But, I heard that they are or have asked for a /6... That is a little more, well ok, a lot more than a /8. Plus could they not do fine using the 10.0.0.0?? and get a bunch of NAT boxes?
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role, (continued)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Christopher E. Stefan (Apr 07)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Howard C. Berkowitz (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role PIER (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Paul Ferguson (Apr 04)
- 192/8 survey (was Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role) Suzanne Woolf (Apr 05)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Howard C. Berkowitz (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role PIER (Apr 04)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Jim Fleming (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Mike O'Dell (Apr 04)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Jim Fleming (Apr 04)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Christian Nielsen (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Vadim Antonov (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Curtis Villamizar (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role rboivie (Apr 05)