past vs future use
Jeff Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jun 28 10:59:03 EDT 1997
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jon, Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > I have to agree with Jon's assesment here. It would seeme exactly > > so that if an ISP is multihomed and completley using at least a > > Unfortunately, if you read a little more carefully (I missed it when > skimming the rfc before, but Mr. Cook pointed it out) section 3 doesn't > seem to apply to ISPs at all. We get shafted in section 2. Section 3 is > for large organizations not giving IP's out to others...not a fitting > description of most ISPs. Yes i read MR Cooks reply to your post after reading yours. But I still in part agree with your assesment, and find section 3 a bit ambigous. I shall have to reread section 2 again. BUt it seems that size should have no barring in HOW allocations are made. WHAT allocations are made I would agree with MR Cooks evaluation. But yours still has merit. Maybe this should be revised? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis <jlewis at fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the NAIPR mailing list