[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?

To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:49:05 +0200
Cc: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>, <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <63BC18C1-FCC0-11D7-B291-00039388672E@muada.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On söndag, okt 12, 2003, at 16:28 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van 
Beijnum wrote:

>
>> If you want to be 'visible' with a smaller block you are an
>> enduser
>
> Or a root nameserver...
>

Root-servers have addresses allocated to them in IPv6. Not an issue for 
any of the current root-servers...

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP4sBtaarNKXTPFCVEQLKhACgt26HG9eNiLh5GoOK2/5CaqX526sAoPYf
1I6UNgIQpgic/5dkRijtGODW
=wryd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

Prev by Date: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
Next by Date: Re: regionalized addresses, RIRs, and table size
Previous by thread: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
Next by thread: Re: Routing table size?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread