-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> As holder of a small block, this scares and irritates me. It scares me that I
> might lose my autonomy and future expansion through no fault of my own, and
> it irritates me that the reason I may be forced to give up my address space
> will probably be to satisfy the internet's desperate need for more spam
> cannons.
Excuse me, "reclamation" was probably the wrong word choice on my part. What I
was intending to convey was "processing of returned blocks."
And the use for the ever-smaller blocks is not for spammers, but for the IPv4
side of 4-to-6 NATs.
-Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAk1MZSwACgkQGvQy4xTRsBEdqACcDnngVari/dTZrt+ha9P8trct
7J4AoJDftyNiU/lB2+nHZPJrTlIkzJGE
=Aaf9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
