[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 ]
ripe at jack.fr.eu.org
ripe at jack.fr.eu.org
Sat Oct 5 19:19:41 CEST 2019
What is not FUD is that 240/4 is not currently routable through my home router So, "it costs nothing" .. well, it cost at least a configuration update, more likely a firmware update, and most certainly some hardware upgrade to support it. A pretty expensite "costs nothing", do not you think ? Regards, On 10/05/2019 07:06 PM, Michel Py 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++ > > 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 ]