On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 17:40, Bengt Gördén <ben...@resilans.se> wrote: > I don't agree. This is a measurement tool. Whatever people think about > extending > or not extending the lifetime of ipv4 is irrelevant. It shouldn't hinder > measurements of said networks. If there's networks out there that pass 0/8 and > 240/4 it's VERY relevant to measure it. Just because you can't see it it > doesn't > mean it's not there.
I support this notion, too - Avoinding the part about if it's stupid or "brilliant" to expand the public v4 space - Focusing on the RIPE Atlas part. Knowing the current extent to which e.g. 240/4 is deployed in the wild from a measurement perspective I find an interesting object to read "research results" on. Putting this in as a future [feature request] for the software development of the RIPE Atlas probe software (for the developer team to evaluate) I do not see an issue with it at all. Thou, all feature requests (regarding the RIPE Atlas software) should of course be objectively analyzed. How "expensive" the feature request will be factually implemented in the end. I.e. the "usual" impact analysis. -- Chriztoffer
