nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:36:21 -0500
On 8 Nov 2004, at 14:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In the end I think we need 1918 style space, and that it should simply be set aside as a large block and expected to never be useful in the context of other organizations, just like 1918 space is today.
Just out of interest, why do you think 1918-style space for v6 is needed?
Joe
Current thread:
- Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Pekka Savola (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adi Linden (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Måns Nilsson (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jeff Rosowski (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Nils Ketelsen (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adi Linden (Nov 11)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Leo Bicknell (Nov 08)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Abley (Nov 08)
