This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Sat Jun 11 21:00:24 CEST 2016
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, NTX NOC wrote: > What does community thinks about it? People have looked into this before. It's not feasible, not enough client OSes support it. People even tried this in the IETF, lots of years ago: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savolainen-indicating-240-addresses-01 IPv4 stone is blead dry. Even if we doubled number of IPv4 addresses by means of some unknown magic, it wouldn't buy is any significant amount of time. The solution is IPv6. There is no other way to fix this. Direct your energy in that direction. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]