On 11/21/22 16:30, Joe Maimon wrote:
You can hardly attempt to convince anybody that 240/4 as unicast would not be the more trivial change made in any of these products natural life cycle points.
One can and indeed some do attempt to do just that. The likelihood of these attempts actually convincing those in a position to influence change is what is in question.
IMNSHO, if such a proposal were to gain traction, by the time that gear capable of using 240/4 as unicast were to be widely deployed, IPv6-capable gear would be much more widely deployed.
META: Can whoever is doing so please stop creating new time-stamped subject lines for the same topic? It makes things hard to follow.
-- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
