| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Randy Bush wrote:
as co-chair, i was really shy to scream at this, but since you opened
the gate :)
o this is just ula-c which has been killed in the ietf and died in
every other rir
o what if i need triple nat, shall we throw away another /8?
o use ipv6!
I have to agree with Randy here.By the way, I thought it was the role of the IETF to determine the address plan and define which parts of the address space are global unicast and which parts are private use, etc. i.e. aren't these in properly standards actions rather than actions of a policy process that is focussed on the policies of the address distribution function?
Geoff