[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Adrian Pitulac
adrian at idsys.ro
Sun Apr 17 08:52:15 CEST 2016
On 17/04/16 05:50, Randy Bush wrote: >>> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8, >>> policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have >>> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which >>> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail. >> Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you >> can propose a policy regarding v4. > not exactly. one can propose something in the opposite direction; > allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24. it may make ipv4 > last longer for the new entrants. and a /24 should be sufficient > for a large nat. > > i.e. i was serious the other day. > > randy > I see the same explanation again and again and again. But I see no real argument from you guys. No statistics, no trending, no prediction, just "keep the ipv4 last longer". Can you do better than that?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]