My understanding is that the IESG (or some part of it) is having
the DNS text looked at by the DNS directorate.
Regards,
Brian
On Feb 4, 2005, at 15:29, Sam Hartman wrote:
Tony == Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony and now the replacement ULA space is unable to be published
Tony as
Tony == Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tony and now the replacement ULA space is unable to be published
Tony as it is dragging out in an interminable discuss state.
I see no discusses on draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr. I have not
been following the document though since I
Hi, Tony,
It is long past time to get over any thoughts about reclaiming IPv4
space.
It will never happen. No organization is going to give up any they
have
until we are well past the point where anyone cares about getting
more.
IPv4 has reached the point of success/failure and is a dead end
Tony,
[ Posting this to the main ietf list as well as to you directly in case
you don't see it there. I realize this may be a controversial topic
that results in an endless thread of heated arguments, but I'll take
my chances since I'm curious to hear reasons for or against the draft. ]
in the long run because IPv4 is
effectively finished. It is inadequate for serious large scale deployments
even now, and as the number of network attached appliances continues to
drive up the number of addresses in use per person the problem only becomes
more acute. The only reason to bother with a 1918bis
On 23-apr-04, at 3:40, Michel Py wrote:
draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Although I don't think it belongs in the draft, could you post some
real
examples of addressing plans that would use that much private space
Yes, the draft is a little light on justification
Tony,
draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt
Although I don't think it belongs in the draft, could you post some real
examples of addressing plans that would use that much private space (we
are talking about 10/8 plus four other class A). I was wondering if it
would not be easier to make a case requesting
