On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Christian Huitema <huit...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :). > > Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic! +1 > > You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside > because you cannot use the current allocation of private address space in RFC > 1918. You tell us that the effect you want to achieve cannot be attained if > the address that you use are also used by customer networks. But then, there > is no mechanism whatsoever that would prevent customer networks from using > the new /10 as soon as it would be allocated. Sure, you may put text in a RFC > somewhere, but that is not a mechanism. Ergo, if we were to make that > allocation, it will become unusable for your stated purpose in a very short > time. > > I think that's not a very good idea. I would rather not see that allocation > being made. > That is my view as well. I think this is a bad idea for the reasons stated. Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
