On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:50 pm, Joe Maimon <jmai...@ttec.com> wrote: […]
>>> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try? >> >> 6 years of work > > What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or > _more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a serious effort at the time. Remind me, who is "they"? I remember this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 and this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18 months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild. The consensus seems to have been in favour of skipping 240/4 and just getting on with deploying IPv6, which everyone would have to do anyway no matter what. Is that so terrible? Regards, Leo
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
