nanog mailing list archives
Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
From: John Curran <jcurran () mail com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:15:26 -0400
At 3:55 PM +0200 10/1/07, Phil Regnauld wrote:
I don't think you need government taxing for that. I think that the IPv4 trading market we're about to see appear will resolve that issue very quickly. Either you can afford it, or you can't.
What happens if folks can somehow obtain IPv4 address blocks but the cumulative route load from all of these non-hierarchical blocks prevents ISP's from routing them? /John
Current thread:
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Daniel Karrenberg (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) JAKO Andras (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Leigh Porter (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Phil Regnauld (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 01)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) John Curran (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Adrian Chadd (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Ted Hardie (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) David Conrad (Oct 02)
- Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6) Phil Regnauld (Oct 01)