Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 11/21/22 16:30, Joe Maimon wrote:
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.
Considering that is already the situation, whats your point?
META: Can whoever is doing so please stop creating new time-stamped subject lines for the same topic? It makes things hard to follow.
