nanog mailing list archives
Re: CSI New York fake IPv6
From: Paul Timmins <paul () telcodata us>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:35:50 -0400
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It'd be nice if TV producers even knew that not all of 555 was to be used for television shows*, let alone that there's an internet equivalent. Heck, it'd be nice if phone companies knew they weren't supposed to route all of 555 to information (Hi, Global Crossing). I can only assume it's some sort of "stupid tax" for people who dial crap they see on TV.Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of "555"? Or will "I hurt myself, so now I'm going to sue you" mean we can't even use that?
-Paul* = http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/form555MasterReport.do?method=display555MasterReport
Only the range of 0100-0199 is to be used for ficticious use
Current thread:
- CSI New York fake IPv6 Skeeve Stevens (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Jay Ashworth (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Jeff Wheeler (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Paul Timmins (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Martin Millnert (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Nick Hilliard (Mar 21)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Fred Baker (Mar 21)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Ina Faye-Lund (Mar 21)
- RE: CSI New York fake IPv6 George Bonser (Mar 21)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Tony Finch (Mar 21)
- RE: CSI New York fake IPv6 Stefan Fouant (Mar 20)
- Re: CSI New York fake IPv6 Jay Ashworth (Mar 20)