[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 ]
Michel Py
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Sat Oct 5 19:06:57 CEST 2019
>>> 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++ Michel.
- 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 ]