In message <c91e67751b1eff41b857de2fe1f68aba0e5...@tk5ex14mbxc274.redmond.corp.
microsoft.com>, Christian Huitema writes:
> > I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
>
> Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic!
>
> You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside b=
> ecause you cannot use the current allocation of private address space in RF=
> C 1918. You tell us that the effect you want to achieve cannot be attained =
> if the address that you use are also used by customer networks. But then, t=
> here is no mechanism whatsoever that would prevent customer networks from u=
> sing the new /10 as soon as it would be allocated. Sure, you may put text i=
> n a RFC somewhere, but that is not a mechanism. Ergo, if we were to make th=
> at allocation, it will become unusable for your stated purpose in a very sh=
> ort time.=20
>
> I think that's not a very good idea. I would rather not see that allocation=
> being made.
By that logic I call for RFC 1918 to be made historic.
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
