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 ]
Kai 'wusel' Siering
wusel+ml at uu.org
Sun Oct 6 00:38:14 CEST 2019
Am 05.10.19 um 22:30 schrieb Michel Py: > This 240/4 as an extension of RFC1918 thing is the perfect example of it. If 240/4 is to be given a different status than "reserved", the only valid option is "public unicast", spread across the RIRs as recovered space. As has been stated here may times, IPv4 is here to stay, so it's vital that relevant amounts of "new" space are put into the public pool. > Net result : organizations that need more than 10/8 are now (and they are plenty of examples) squatting un-announced DoD space such as 30/8. Maybe someone should tell them about IPv6 then. -kai
- 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 ]