At 07:30 PM 16/12/2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Geoff, what is your opinion on asking IANA to publish this prefix list
through their whois interface (whois.iana.net) which currently does
serve some domains like .int.
This would be useful for redirection purposes to the correct RIR or
simply finding
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 18:25 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
At 10:54 PM 15/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked as
Reserved by IETF.
I think it would make more sense, and
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Geoff, what is your opinion on asking IANA to publish this prefix list
through their whois interface (whois.iana.net) which currently does
serve some domains like .int.
This would be useful for redirection purposes to the correct RIR or
simply finding out
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 11:26 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Geoff, what is your opinion on asking IANA to publish this prefix list
through their whois interface (whois.iana.net) which currently does
serve some domains like .int.
This would be useful
[4] FEA0::/10 was previously defined as a Site-Local scoped address
prefix. This definition has been deprecated as of September 2004
[RFC3879].
I think that's a typo for FEC0::/10
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked
as Reserved by IETF.
IANA's
On , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked as
Reserved by IETF.
I think it would make more sense, and would be in keeping with the
proposed format of the registry if it was marked as 'Unique Local
Unicast' under
At 10:54 PM 15/12/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On , [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
As soon as the ULA draft is approved, FC00::/7 can also be marked as
Reserved by IETF.
I think it would make more sense, and would be in keeping with the
proposed format of the registry if
