Re: Burn Rate? Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>]

* aychen () avinta com (Abraham Y. Chen) [Fri 12 Jan 2024, 13:09 CET]:
>     EzIP proposes that 240/4 be used like 10.64/10 in CG-NAT. which is 
> reusable for each isolated geographical area. Thus, there is no 
> "Burn-rate" to talk about.

You have posted this statement like five times now in the past two days.

Who is asking for this expansion of 100.64/10 (which you misspelled, 
by the way)? Where are the claims that the amount of private space 
behind a CGNAT is the limiting factor in CGNAT deployments?

[five meters of superfluous quote history snipped]


        -- Niels.