[address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Apr 23 14:57:51 CEST 2004
Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote: > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm > amazed. Full ACK. Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair. The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full /8s". So how to proceed? Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the politics here. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]