Can you be more specific about what changes to IPv6 you believe would resolve the issue?
Owen > On Nov 18, 2021, at 01:43 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > > No, you are not alone. This just gets kinda pathetic. > It also shows how an IPv6 is a failure. > (No please, leave me alone all you IPv6 zealots). > > I think its time to go back to design board and start > working on IPv8 ;) so we finnaly get rid of IPv4... > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> > To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 23:29:49 +0000 (UTC) > > This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed? > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html > > That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just > me. So many things are just me. > > [ Hat tip to Lauren Weinstein, whom I stole it from ] > > Cheers, > -- jra > > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
