nanog mailing list archives
Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)
From: johnl () iecc com
Date: 27 Jul 2019 19:50:54 -0000
In article <23868.39953.398906.559231 () gargle gargle HOWL> you write:
Not particularly interested in arguing for using Class E space but this "not compatible" reasoning would seem to have applied to IPv6 in the early 2000s (whatever, pick an earlier date when little supported IPv6) just as well, pretty much.
Right. A point that's been made about a hundred times already is that the effort to add class E to the IPv4 space is the same as the effort to support IPv6, so why waste time with class E? R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8), (continued)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Owen DeLong (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) George Herbert (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Ross Tajvar (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Jul 26)
- Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Doug Barton (Jul 26)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) William Herrin (Jul 26)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Doug Barton (Jul 26)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) William Herrin (Jul 26)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Doug Barton (Jul 27)
- Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) bzs (Jul 27)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) johnl (Jul 27)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Randy Bush (Jul 27)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Stephen Satchell (Jul 27)
- Re: 44/8 John Curran (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 William Herrin (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 John Curran (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Tom Beecher (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Matt Harris (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Matthew Kaufman (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 John Curran (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Matthew Kaufman (Jul 22)