[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Sat Oct 5 19:09:36 CEST 2019
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 19:07, Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > >>> Nick Hilliard wrote : > >>> The cost of making 240/4 usable is to update every device on the > >>> planet, including legacy ipv4 stacks. > > >> Michel Py wrote : > >> No it is not. It costs nothing to the Internet, it only costs to > >> those who chose to use it as private address space. More FUD. > > > Gert Doering wrote : > > It's not "private address space" unless designated as such. > > Wrong again. It's not public unless given to RIRs to allocate it. > FUD++ I think what Gert means is that this space has not been designated by IETF/IANA for *any* purpose yet. One way of looking at it is to acknowledge it is neither private nor public space at this moment in time. See the various columns here https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml Regards, Job -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20191005/b6da46fd/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]