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]/

[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 19:06:57 CEST 2019

>>> Nick Hilliard wrote :
>>> The cost of making 240/4 usable is to update every device on the 
>>> planet, including legacy ipv4 stacks.

>> Michel Py wrote :
>> No it is not. It costs nothing to the Internet, it only costs to
>> those who chose to use it as private address space. More FUD.

> Gert Doering wrote :
> It's not "private address space" unless designated as such.

Wrong again. It's not public unless given to RIRs to allocate it.
FUD++

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 ]