I read Peter Koch's comments archived at
http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg56447.html
as a strong hint that this document, draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06,
should be published as a BCP, and that the normative language
needs to be strengthened forther, with a MUST NOT for all
private/
On 4/7/09 10:26 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
10.0.0.0/8 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
block SHOULD NOT appear on the public Internet and can be used
without any coordination with IANA or an Inter
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:06:20PM -0700, The IESG wrote:
> - 'Special Use IPv4 Addresses'
> as an Informational RFC
It is worth documenting the changes to several allocations or assignments since
RFC 3330 and the draft does that well.
Here are some questions and remarks that could be address
--On Sunday, March 29, 2009 09:20 -0700 Paul Hoffman
wrote:
>...
> It will not really hasten the demise of IPv4 for IANA to
> reserve one non-private /24 for a second example space from
> the next allocation that it makes to an RIR.
Or to ask one of the RIRs (probably ARIN for historical reaso
At 10:32 PM +0100 3/28/09, wrote:
>I have one suggestion for draft-iana-rfc3330bis (not wearing any
>hats):
>
>I think it would be useful to have more addresses for use in
>documentation and examples, in addition to the current 192.0.2.0/24.
>Although it's naturally possible to split 192.0.2.0/24
I have one suggestion for draft-iana-rfc3330bis (not wearing any
hats):
I think it would be useful to have more addresses for use in
documentation and examples, in addition to the current 192.0.2.0/24.
Although it's naturally possible to split 192.0.2.0/24 to smaller
pieces (e.g., two /25s or fou
