nanog mailing list archives
Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6]
From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:10:37 -0500
Alan, Thinking about your response, I am reminded of the MUST and SHOULD semantics in the context of IETF documents. ;-) - paul At 05:03 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
Networks that span large geographic areas should be deaggregated into regional ares such that aggregation can be efficiently implemented. Additionally, within this provider, they should allocate their chunk of the address space in a geographic manner.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6, (continued)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 05)
- Message not available
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Richard Irving (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Re: IPv8 < IPv6 Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Alan Hannan (Nov 06)
- Re: Geographic v. topological address allocation [Was: Re: IPv8 < IPv6] Paul Ferguson (Nov 06)