> On Jul 22, 2019, at 9:15 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
>
>> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal
>> process. It may change significantly if it is ever submitted.
>> You are reading it because we trust you and we value your
>> opinions. *Please do not recirc
> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal
> process. It may change significantly if it is ever submitted.
> You are reading it because we trust you and we value your
> opinions. *Please do not recirculate it.* Please join us in
> testing patches an
Most importantly, if you're running out of 1918 space is a totally
different problem than running out of global routable space.
If you patch common OSes for 240/4 usability but a significant fraction of
say unpatched OSes, IOT, consumer routers, old random net cruft necessary
for infrastructure ar
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 20:14 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP
>> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s
>> being evaluated against a global
>>
On 10/16/07, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The effort someone would spend figuring out if 204/4 is reachable and
> > not-pain-inducing in their infrastructure is better spent figuring out how
> > to
> > make IPv6 work within their sphere of responsibilities.
> I agree. The cu
At 02:29 PM 10/16/2007, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alain Durand wrote:
Classifying it as private use should come with the health warning "use this
at your own risk, this stuff can blow up your network". In other words, this
is for experimental use only.
Do we need to classify
6 matches
Mail list logo
