[100119] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 240/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Oct 17 20:28:31 2007
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:41:39 BST."
<D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001366644@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:27:37 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1192667257_25448P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:41:39 BST, michael.dillon@bt.com said:
> This is not the case. We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
> organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make
> it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time,
> maybe even years.
Those organizations will find ways to buy themselves years even without 240/4.
> P.S. and how will you feel if those businesses trawl the record on the
> Internet to discover that you, and employee of one of their competitors,
> caused 240/4 to not be released and thereby harmed their businesses. You
> will be explaining in front of a judge.
They caused a resource that was never *planned* for release to, in fact,
not be released. 240/4 has been in "reserved" ever since rfc790 in 1981.
And the IPV6 RFCs have been out for a decade as well, so it isn't like they
haven't had years to plan.
But hey, the SCO lawsuit is still alive too (if on life support after it was
stayed by their filing Chapter 11 to escape from their own lawsuits), so what
do I know? Maybe there's an actual chance that would fly.
--==_Exmh_1192667257_25448P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFHFqh5cC3lWbTT17ARAhe0AJ0ehSw3XZDDaMdCKvEtjrcjagIpyACfQO+Q
XevGfBVE4DtQM0xeddHV99M=
=4265
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1192667257_25448P--
