nanog mailing list archives
Re: 214/8 and 215/8
From: Eliot Lear <lear () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 08:21:14 -0800
I'm not sure the current discussion is timely. Do we really want to start a reclaiming effort of IP addresses? Addresses such as Apple's, HP's, IBM's and others were made long before RFC2050.
Current thread:
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Oct 31)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Nigel Titley (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Christopher A. Woodfield (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 John Kristoff (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Eliot Lear (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Simon Lyall (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- RE: 214/8 and 215/8 Daniel Golding (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Nigel Titley (Nov 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Joe Provo (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Philip Smith (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Nov 01)