Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

On Aug 9, 2007, at 12:37 PM, todd glassey wrote:

> Its not all wrong - only the Multicast Address space is mislabeled...
ACK, but that is what I was referring too...

Marshall

> T
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marshall Eubanks"  
> <tme(_at_)multicasttech(_dot_)com>
> To: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
> Cc: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; "IETF discussion  
> list" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:52 AM
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > >
> > > > What happened to draft-hain-1918bis-01, which tried to get more   
> > > > address space for private Internets, but expired back in 2005?
> > > > I see the point about regarding 240.0.0.0/4 as "tainted space"  
> > > > and therefore being less than useful on the public Internet.....
> > > RFC 3330 listed as not currently part of the public Internet:
> > >
> > > 0.0.0.0/8 "this" 16,777,216
> > > 10.0.0.0/8 "private" 16,777,216
> > > 127.0.0.0/8 "loopback" 16,777,216
> > > 169.254.0.0/16 "link-local"      65,536
> > > 172.16.0.0/12 "private"   1,048,576
> > > 192.0.2.0/24 "test-net"         256
> > > 192.168.0.0/16 "private"      65,536
> > > 192.18.0.0/15 "benchmark"     131,072
> > > 224.0.0.0/4 "multicast" 268,435,456
> > This is simply wrong. Multicast is certainly part of the public   
> > Internet, it is certainly used on the
> > public Internet and (I might point out) people (including yours   
> > truly) make money from it.
> > Regards
> > Marshall Eubanks
> >
> >
> > > 240.0.0.0/4 "reserved" 268,435,466
> > >                              -------------
> > >                                587,569,816 (13.68% of total non-  
> > > public)
> > >                              4,294,967,296 (total)
> > >                              3,707,397,480 (addresses public)
> > >
> > > Some larger providers and private organizations who depend upon   
> > > private IPv4 addresses have complained there is no suitably  
> > > large  "private" IP address range which can assure each user  
> > > within their  network can obtain a unique private IP address.  It  
> > > would seem  class E could, and might already, function as a  
> > > larger "private" IP  address range.
> > > -Doug
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf