On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Christian Huitema
<huitema(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :).
Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic!
+1
+lots.
You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside
because you cannot use the current allocation of private address space in
RFC 1918. You tell us that the effect you want to achieve cannot be attained
if the address that you use are also used by customer networks. But then,
there is no mechanism whatsoever that would prevent customer networks from
using the new /10 as soon as it would be allocated. Sure, you may put text
in a RFC somewhere, but that is not a mechanism. Ergo, if we were to make
that allocation, it will become unusable for your stated purpose in a very
short time.
I think that's not a very good idea. I would rather not see that allocation
being made.
That is my view as well. I think this is a bad idea for the reasons stated.
<sob>
I was *really* trying to stay out of this (both because I made my position
clear at the beginning of this effort, and because it has turned into a
political pissing match).
While Ron had made it clear that this was not intended to be another last call,
it seems to have morphed into one, so...
I too believe that this is a bad idea for the reasons already stated (and
restated, and then restated again and then discussed and restated and then
churned around and restated...).
W
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf