> I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole reason for > allocating this space was that 1918 space _couldn't_ easily be used for CGN > because there were too many conflicting usages. So, now we're making more 1918 > space? This is a good idea... how? If we need more 1918 space, let's do so > deliberately, and not kill the usefulness of this space for CGN. (Unless, of > course...) > Noel
+1 on this and Brian's comment. While I still support this draft, the wording in section 4 is probably too soft and reduces a lot the usefulness of this adressing space. /JFT
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
