I am aware of all these attempts as well. The IETF has no interest in this. My point is that this has to come from the IETF and at least one RIR that you mentioned already tried and failed
As Owen has said and the IETF has agreed, IPv6 is the “better alternative ” Thanks! Cathy Sent from a handheld device. > On May 16, 2019, at 9:41 PM, Michel Py <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Cathy, > >> Cj Aronson wrote : >> Michel, >> If you check out the last draft that expired in 2008 you'll see it was >> written by Geoff, George, and Paul at APNIC >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00 > > I was totally aware of this; a more recent version has been mentioned in this > very mailing list a few days ago. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 > > I am also aware of this : > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 > > and more recent attempts : > http://flent-newark.bufferbloat.net/~d/IPv4%20Unicast%20Extensions3.pdf > > and this: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6319 > > I think another effort in the IETF will fail again. Not what I'm suggesting. > People will continue to squat until they have a better alternative. > > > Michel. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
