240/4

Thu Oct 18 00:27:37 UTC 2007

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:41:39 BST, michael.dillon at bt.com said:

> This is not the case. We want to release 240/4 as a solution for those
> organizations that are in a position to control enough variables to make
> it useful. For those organizations, 240/4 space could buy a LOT of time,
> maybe even years.

Those organizations will find ways to buy themselves years even without 240/4.

> P.S. and how will you feel if those businesses trawl the record on the
> Internet to discover that you, and employee of one of their competitors,
> caused 240/4 to not be released and thereby harmed their businesses. You
> will be explaining in front of a judge.

They caused a resource that was never *planned* for release to, in fact,
not be released.  240/4 has been in "reserved" ever since rfc790 in 1981.
And the IPV6 RFCs have been out for a decade as well, so it isn't like they
haven't had years to plan.

But hey, the SCO lawsuit is still alive too (if on life support after it was
stayed by their filing Chapter 11 to escape from their own lawsuits), so what
do I know?  Maybe there's an actual chance that would fly.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071017/813e258f/attachment.sig>