Bob Hinden wrote:
Iljitsch,
The only scenario that makes sense to me to use 240/4 as non-reserved
address space is if it's use can help move us to IPv6 (e.g., Plan A).
By that logic, shouldn't we stop all IPv4-related work?
Yes.
That was a good question to ask indeed ;-)
A different topic than this thread , but a good one to ask, so I changed
the subject line.
I understand the need to fix IPv4 when there is a need to fix a bug or
an existing feature in a deployed protocol, but I don't understand why
the IETF is not cutting new proposed work items that intend to provide
new features to IPv4.
This uses important IETF CPU cycles and energy that we cannot afford to
pay as a community. One cannot fight two wars at once, and the one we
need to win right now is "IPv6 deployment".
Thierry
begin:vcard
fn:Thierry Ernst
n:Ernst;Thierry
org:INRIA Rocquencourt;IMARA - LARA
adr:;;;;;;France
tel;work:+33 1 39 63 59 30
tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91
url:http://www.lara.prd.fr
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
