nanog mailing list archives
RE: 44/8
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund () medline com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:15:23 +0000
I think the Class E block has been covered before. There were two reasons to not re-allocate it. 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle them. 2. It was decided that squeezing every bit of space out of the v4 allocations only served to delay the desired v6 deployment. This is my recollection and might be flawed. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted all existing >allocations.
Current thread:
- Re: 44/8, (continued)
- Re: 44/8 Joe Hamelin (Jul 24)
- Ancient history (was Re: 44/8) David Conrad (Jul 24)
- Re: Ancient history (was Re: 44/8) William Herrin (Jul 24)
- RE: 44/8 Michel Py (Jul 22)
- RE: 44/8 Jerry Cloe (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Ca By (Jul 22)
- RE: 44/8 Michel Py (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Hansen, Christoffer (Jul 24)
- Re: 44/8 Owen DeLong (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Matt Hoppes (Jul 22)
- RE: 44/8 Naslund, Steve (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Stephen Satchell (Jul 22)
- Re: 44/8 Owen DeLong (Jul 22)
- 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Owen DeLong (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) George Herbert (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Ross Tajvar (Jul 22)
- Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Jul 26)
- Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Doug Barton (Jul 26)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) William Herrin (Jul 26)
- Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8) Doug Barton (Jul 26)