nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Max Harmony via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:12:03 -0500
On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot guarantee it wont.
The reassignment being implemented faster than IPv6 seems like a big assumption.
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Max Harmony via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Dave Taht (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 19)