nanog mailing list archives

Re: The Reg does 240/4


From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:43:16 -0800

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:03 AM Christopher Hawker <chris () thesysadmin au> wrote:
[Note: I have cross-posted this reply to a thread from NANOG on
AusNOG, SANOG and APNIC-Talk in order to invite more peers
to engage in the discussion on their respective forums.]

Chris,

Do not cross-post lists. Many of the folks who want to discuss are
only subscribed to one of the lists and thus cannot post to the
others. This inevitably results in a disjoint and confusing set of
posts with replies to messages for which the originals didn't make it
to the local list. If you want to discuss something on multiple lists
with multiple audiences, start a separate discussion on each.

Honestly, how can you not know this. It's only been mailing list
etiquette for decades.


we feel it is appropriate for this space to be reclassified as
Unicast space available for delegation by IANA/PTI to RIRs
on behalf of ICANN.

That is probably unrealistic. Getting 240/4 reclassified as unicast is
at least plausible. As you say, there's no residual value in
continuing to hold it in reserve. The opportunity cost has fallen near
zero. But before anybody with a clue is willing to see it allocated to
RIRs for general Internet use they'll want to see studies and
experiments which demonstrate that it's usable enough on the public
Internet to be usefully deployed there.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill () herrin us
https://bill.herrin.us/


Current thread: