Hello,
This is really good news, however, I did not know it before.
Extending the reusable address space is a good idea, I think, however, the
scope of the address space should be well-defined.
I wrote a draft in 2007 and a Japonais group wrote a draft in 2008. The
similarity of the drafts included the extension of the reusable address
space by IANA, and both drafts explained how and why this space should be
used in the IPv4->IPv6 transition.
My draft had been lost as I changed job and email address (and nobody
explained me that this is a problem).
The Japanaise draft was discussed in the Internet area meeting in Dublin,
but then it was no room for continuing the discussion.
Probably we should continue it.
Géza
(one of the contributors of RFC1918)
2012/3/14 Roger Jørgensen <rogerj(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Måns Nilsson
<mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:22:04AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
OriginAS:
NetName: SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
GOOD.
Now I can BOTH keep sticking my head in the sand AND get NEW RFC 1918
space to number my devices!
This is really "good" news for some people, that already have address
conflict within RFC1918 and don't want to get public address space :p
--- Roger J ---
Trailing edge WINS!
Congrats, all you people who joined the ietf mailing list to get your
VOTE through. You can sign off now and continue non-contributing to the
developement of the future.
--
/Måns, pissed off.
--
Roger Jorgensen |
rogerj(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(_at_)jorgensen(_dot_)no