On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > > > On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :). >> >> Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic! > > +1
+lots. > >> >> You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside >> because you cannot use the current allocation of private address space in >> RFC 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, >> there is no mechanism whatsoever that would prevent customer networks from >> using the new /10 as soon as it would be allocated. Sure, you may put text >> in a RFC somewhere, but that is not a mechanism. Ergo, if we were to make >> that allocation, it will become unusable for your stated purpose in a very >> short time. >> >> I think that's not a very good idea. I would rather not see that allocation >> being made. >> > > That is my view as well. I think this is a bad idea for the reasons stated. <sob> I was *really* trying to stay out of this (both because I made my position clear at the beginning of this effort, and because it has turned into a political pissing match). While Ron had made it clear that this was not intended to be another last call, it seems to have morphed into one, so... I too believe that this is a bad idea for the reasons already stated (and restated, and then restated again and then discussed and restated and then churned around and restated...). W > > Bob > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
