> On Nov 19, 2021, at 11:46 , John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> wrote: > > Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote: >> And all thats needed to be done is to drop this ridiculous .0 for >> broadcast compatibility from standards.....why is this even controversial? > > Not to put words in his mouth, but that's how original BSD maintainer > Mike Karels seemed to feel when we raised this issue for FreeBSD. He > was like, what? We're wasting an address per subnet for 4.2BSD > compatability? Since 1986? Let's fix that. > > John Don’t get me started on BSD vs. IETF Standards… The whole stupidity around VRRP and CARP still irritates me, so I don’t think holding up the BSD attitude towards network standards is helping your case any. Owen
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Michael Thomas
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Levine
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying John Lee
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Masataka Ohta
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unic... Dave Taht
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as ... Joe Maimon
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as ... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8... Joe Maimon
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240... John Gilmore
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unic... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Andrews
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast pub... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast... Joe Maimon
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast... William Herrin
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast... Joe Maimon
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast... Joe Maimon