nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () uunet uu net>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 21:39:55 -0500
Or as Bullwinkle said:
"No doubt about it, I gotta get another hat!"
For my money, the solution is IPv6 with 8+8 addresses, so the
routing goop can be changed without impacting the transport
machinery. this will allow essentially transparent "renumbering"
if done right.
And rule (13):
"Often the easiest way to resolve a problem is to simply
agree not to have it."
-mo
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role, (continued)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Avi Freedman (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Christopher E. Stefan (Apr 07)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Howard C. Berkowitz (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role PIER (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Paul Ferguson (Apr 04)
- 192/8 survey (was Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role) Suzanne Woolf (Apr 05)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Howard C. Berkowitz (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role PIER (Apr 04)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Jim Fleming (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Mike O'Dell (Apr 04)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Jim Fleming (Apr 04)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Christian Nielsen (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Vadim Antonov (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Curtis Villamizar (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role rboivie (Apr 05)
