>> Michel Py wrote : >> As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and >> nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks >> because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks.
> Jerry Cloe wrote : > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly > assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it. They are not the only ones; would probably be faster to count who does not squat than who does. Which makes my point : if we had done it 15 years ago and allocated 240/4 as private unicast, these 268 million addresses would have been enough for most to avoid squatting DoD. This is the last attempt that I remember : https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 Not problem, because IPv6 is going to be deployed in the next two years, right ? that's what I have been hearing for 20 years now. Michel TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
