On 14-Jun-2007, at 14:09, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, at 02:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Just avoiding ANY collision risk. VERY VERY VERY LOW is not enough
for them.
My attitude is that IETF should tell them that's THEIR problem, not
OURS. Has the operator community expla
On Jun 14, 2007, at 02:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Just avoiding ANY collision risk. VERY VERY VERY LOW is not enough
for them.
My attitude is that IETF should tell them that's THEIR problem, not
OURS. Has the operator community explained why the odds of a
collision in a 2^40 addres
TECTED]>
Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:42:20 +0200
Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Asunto: Re: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.4/4.5] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned
ULA draft
On 2007-06-14 11:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could
posals/2007-05.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> De: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:21:04 +0200
>>> Para: Roger Jorgensen
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Asunto: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.4/4.5] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA
draft
On 2007-06-12 22:19, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Is this a little like the RH0 thread? When it was a choice of disabling
by default or removing enti
D]>
> CC: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Asunto: [***SPAM*** Score/Req: 10.4/4.5] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA
> draft
>
> On 2007-06-12 22:19, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is this a little l
