[137513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Feb 15 05:09:26 2011
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <007401cbcc0a$96ca9830$c45fc890$@iname.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:08:01 +0100
To: <frnkblk@iname.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 14 feb 2011, at 6:46, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Requiring them to be on certain well known addresses is restrictive =
and
> creates an unnecessary digression from IPv4 practice. It's comments =
like
> this that raise the hair on admins' necks. At least mine.
I don't get this. Why spend cycles discovering a value that doesn't need =
to change?
But I lost this argument in the IETF years ago, so I guess I'm =
relatively alone here.=
