[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:50 pm, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:

[?]

>>> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
>> 
>> 6 years of work
> 
> What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or 
> _more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a serious effort at the time.

Remind me, who is "they"?

I remember this:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-240space-02

and this:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18 months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild.

The consensus seems to have been in favour of skipping 240/4 and just getting on with deploying IPv6, which everyone would have to do anyway no matter what. Is that so terrible?

Regards,

Leo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120919/3344f41d/attachment.bin>