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 ]
Carsten Schiefner
carsten at schiefner.de
Tue Feb 16 17:46:04 CET 2021
+1 - what Bengt says. Best, -C. On 16.02.2021 17:40, Bengt Gördén wrote: > 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 ]