[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DNS Changer items
- Subject: DNS Changer items
- From: valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu (valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu)
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:34:08 -0400
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:51:32 -0400." <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CANB6qChF4hTYkP8K39q8==Au7jZTqwoyROhSGHvELwV64gOcDw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CALOgxGZhq-MkfN_v7dN67YrwcSHZauY6s5bqw=049_GNvZLE9w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:51:32 -0400, Randy Whitney said:
> Perhaps it should not have been re-allocated at all, rather than cause
> the unsuspecting allocatee trouble they would not have seen from
> clean(er) space.
"unsuspecting"??!?
You want a clean prefix, get some IPv6 space instead. Anybody who is
getting IPv4 space in 2012 and doesn't realize that they're getting "scraping
the bottom of the barrel" quality prefixes will get what they deserve for
not doing their due diligence (i.e. paying attention the last decade or so).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 865 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120815/2e11588a/attachment.bin>