Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Agree, but actually I was wondering, if the AC/board has the power
so just modify the policy in order to use ULA-C space, assuming
that when the ULA-C becomes available, it offers the same
features required by this policy. It may be much easie
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Anyway is something that could be debated when ULA-C is available :-)
if ULA-C is available... why are you so sure it will go through and be
accepted?
not many have supported it so far. Some of those in favour have changed
view, me included.
D]>, ARIN People Posting Mailing List
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Conversación: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
>
> Jordi- We are saying the same thing. Just how you
ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6@ietf.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> > If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read
> > *be
> If (non-globally routed) PI is the answer to the ULA-C question, is
> there going to be enough (non-globally routed) PI so that I can get a
> (non-globally routed) PI allocation for my home, at a small charge for
> the guaranteed uniqueness e.g. US$10 per annum ? How about my Personal
> Area Netw
On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read
*before*
minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point
you to a
specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting.
It has been clear a
(non-globally routed) PI it isn't solving the
ULA/ULA-C problem.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:41 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
Hi Marla,
In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about the
possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and talking
with different folks they said that it will be
r, Marla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400
> Para: Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they cou=
> ld
> > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
> > infrastructure's.
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jeroen Massar
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
[cc
11 matches
Mail list logo
