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

Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

Subject: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:23:25 +0100
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <CAPWAtbJx56qyroisNYmB=0q8dDYMixfZBfQwDTVxmW=Y6mhP6w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 12-3-2012 16:07, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 
> Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> writes:
> 

> Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
> +
> Need for multihoming
> +
> Got tired of waiting
> =
> IPv6 PI

+
Cheap End Users
=
IPv6 NPt (IPv6 Prefix Translation)

Cheers,

Seth

Follow-Ups:
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)

References:
- filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: jsw at inconcepts.biz (Jeff Wheeler)
- filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
- filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel jaeggli)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
  - From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)

Prev by Date: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
Next by Date: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
Previous by thread: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
Next by thread: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread