On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:48 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> 2) "Squat" on someone else's space or un-allocated space. I don't think >> that's a result we should want to happen, for obvious reasons. (I also don't >> think it's likely many ISPs would do this either - just noting it's possible) > > Say you are the CIO of a large ISP. If you get to decide between spending > $50M or having your customers be potentially unable to communicate with (say) > a relatively tiny number of ham operators (44/8) or US SIPRnet (which I > suspect is against the law for your customers to communicate with) or <pick > your favorite block>, what would be your choice?
I was trying to be kind, but you're right that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't considered the 44/8 ham operator block, but that one is kind of a hog waiting to be slaughtered... it's not kosher but they probably wouldn't squeal too much. ;) -hadriel _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
