Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: >> Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 7. Shall there be a separate range for existing ones (<= 301) instead >>> of lumping them in FCFS, since some have specification, etc? >> >> FCFS space will have uneven amount of specification, which historically we >> have had.
> Should we designate 0-301 as "historic", meaning "this is what was
> registered before we established the registry, so it's inconsistent in
> the level of specification - we won't assign any values in that range"?
I don't mind saying something, it only costs a sentence :-)
I think historic is the wrong designation though.
However, I think it's bordering on micro-managing.
What does the WG think?
We are managing a 64K space with, as you point out, a rather long lifespan,
and for which a few mis-allocations won't hurt anyone.
(This is not the last IPv4/8)
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
