Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
joelja at bogus.com
Mon Nov 29 13:59:31 CST 2010
Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages
across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere.
While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism
and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of
options down to fewer rather than more. e.g. the positive result and the
path to advancement of this draft would be when the document produces a
solid recommendation on address part naming rather than several of them.
Several recomendations do not get us further down the road to a common
More information about the NANOG