On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:13:25PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > I still strongly oppose the publication of this draft. In any form > > except a complete rewrite telling providers to use RFC1918 and be done > > with it. > > If you have any good technical reasons for finding this a bad idea _other_ > than the supposed negative effects on IPv6 deployment, it would be useful to > hear them. Are there any?
There is no case for it. Any space so allocated will, by tearing down the last community restrains on address reuse, become an extension to RFC1918. There are legitimate uses for unique v4 space as documented in RIR policy and v4 sunset procedures. Let the /10 go there instead. -- Måns _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
