[181178] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Jun 18 01:18:28 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:18:24 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQ80Wx6g_Jc61VCUDY6-yw=fHcUaCPao37+Z7GYsAVKgA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:17:53 -0400, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
>
> Proposed and denied. Please stop this line and spend your efforts on ipv6
By APNIC. Cisco did, too, btw. And they weren't first, either. Nor is this
going to be the last time someone suggests it.
To paraphrase Curran (since he's not popping by to say it), it's a lot of
work that ultimately yields a small amount of space that's STILL going to
run out. 16 /8's won't fix the problem.
Just deploy IPv6 already. Sure, there's plenty to complain about -- and we
do complain! -- but it's what we have.
--Ricky
