Bob Hinden wrote:
Michael Richardson wrote:
Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> writes:
cool. then, by that logic, let's use 240/4. the apps will
patch within a week. ok, maybe two.
Seriously, I think we *SHOULD* use 240/10.
(let's keep some for the next horrible hack)
I agree, this is a good use of the "Experimental" Class E IPv4 addresses.
It seems to me that this is for new deployments (the CDN gear and new
customer CPE equipment). The operators who want this should be able
to make this work and and incur the cost for doing so.
How about 240/8 (more room than /10, easier to recognized
for humans, but still addresses left for future hacks).
Ietf mailing list