nanog mailing list archives
Re: 240/4
From: Alain Durand <alain_durand () cable comcast com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:53:58 -0600
On 10/18/07 2:24 PM, "Joe Greco" <jgreco () ns sol net> wrote:
Actually, though, I have a better solution. Let's ask the IETF to revise an RFC, and define the first octet of an IPv4 address as being from 0- 65535. That's asking the IETF to revise an RFC, too, such request being just as practical as what you suggest, and yet I'd say that the overall solution is just as likely to work well as IPv4-240+. It'd probably also solve the transition to IPv6 issue; we wouldn't need to.
Or simply ask IANA to open up 256/5. After all, this is just an entry in a table, should be easy to do, especially if it is done on Apr 1st. ;-) - Alain.
Current thread:
- Re: 240/4, (continued)
- RE: 240/4 michael.dillon (Oct 18)
- RE: 240/4 michael.dillon (Oct 18)
- RE: 240/4 (MLC NOTE) Alex Pilosov (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 (MLC NOTE) S. Ryan (Oct 19)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Vince Fuller (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Alain Durand (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Joe Greco (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: 240/4 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 19)