Bob Hinden wrote: > > >Michael Richardson wrote: >> >>Randy Bush <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>> cool. then, by that logic, let's use 240/4. the apps will >>> patch within a week. ok, maybe two. >> >> Seriously, I think we *SHOULD* use 240/10. >> (let's keep some for the next horrible hack) > > I agree, this is a good use of the "Experimental" Class E IPv4 addresses. > It seems to me that this is for new deployments (the CDN gear and new > customer CPE equipment). The operators who want this should be able > to make this work and and incur the cost for doing so.
How about 240/8 (more room than /10, easier to recognized for humans, but still addresses left for future hacks). -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
