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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Sat Sep 23 10:48:42 CEST 2017
>> When do we distribute 240/4 among the RIRs as "really last /8s"? > > I made that question myself during an ICANN meeting (the only i > attended) 10 years ago. The answer was something about operating > systems' stacks. I wasn't fully convinced, but a large majority of > internet plumbers seems to buy it... analogous to one's need for ipv4 reachability until the last ipv4 sites die out, if any equipment does not properly route and forward 240/4 then there will be folk who can not reach those with addresses drawn from that space. darned shame but we do need universal reachability. we do not have a good track record for addressing architectures. check out rfc 2450 when you have not eaten recently. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]