The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Sep 20 02:52:42 UTC 2012
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:50 pm, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
>>> So 6-8 years to try and rehabilitate 240/4 was not even enough to try?
>> 6 years of work
> What I said is that they knew they would have had at least 6 years or
> _more_ to rehabilitate it, had they made a serious effort at the time.
Remind me, who is "they"?
I remember this:
There was even a dedicated mailing list. But the drafts never made it beyond drafts, which suggests there was not a consensus in favour of an extra 18 months of IPv4 space with dubious utility value because of issues with deploy-and-forget equipment out in the wild.
The consensus seems to have been in favour of skipping 240/4 and just getting on with deploying IPv6, which everyone would have to do anyway no matter what. Is that so terrible?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4359 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG