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/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas testing of reserved IPv4 addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas testing of reserved IPv4 addresses
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas testing of reserved IPv4 addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bengt Gördén
bengan at resilans.se
Tue Feb 16 17:40:59 CET 2021
On 2021-02-16 15:55, Avamander wrote: > some may find it controversial, but I don't think any effort should be spent > at extending the life of IPv4. In this case, by extending the address space. I don't agree. This is a measurement tool. Whatever people think about extending or not extending the lifetime of ipv4 is irrelevant. It shouldn't hinder measurements of said networks. If there's networks out there that pass 0/8 and 240/4 it's VERY relevant to measure it. Just because you can't see it it doesn't mean it's not there. -- /bengan
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas testing of reserved IPv4 addresses
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas testing of reserved IPv4 addresses
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]