Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

Sat Jul 27 06:01:06 UTC 2019

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:36 PM Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
> So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from
all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter than
me on this topic) was wrong, and that putting the same LOE into IPv6
adoption that it would have taken to make Class E usable was a better
investment

Doug,

"Better investment?" What on earth makes you think it's a zero-sum game?

"Same level of effort?" A reasonable level of effort was adding the word
"unicast" to the word "reserved" in the standards. Seven letters. A space.
Maybe a comma. That would have unblocked everybody else to apply however
much or little effort they cared to. Here we are nearly 20 years later and
had you not fumbled that ball 240/4 might be broadly enough supported to
usefully replace the word "reserved" with something else.

You're right about one thing: you won't be able to convince me that your
conclusion was rational. No matter how many smart people say a stupid
thing, it's still a stupid thing.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190726/3b42091d/attachment.html>