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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/

[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Sat Oct 5 00:51:40 CEST 2019

> Dave Taht wrote :
> https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/tree/master/rfcs
> I'd like lots more folk to review this before we punt it up to iana and the ietf,

IMHO, 240/4 is worth the effort as an extension to RFC1918 but the rest of that (127/8, 0/8) is not worth the effort. One or two more class A blocks does not change the big picture.

And I suppose you are aware that there were several attempts before, including the last one submitted by APNIC, and that they all have been torpedoed by the IPv6 zealots.

Michel.

• Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
• Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]