Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, yes, we could assign a range for it.
> Thanks for this, Guy.
> Based on my experience, providing Experimental allocations encourages
> experimenters to use designated values rather than pulling from
> unassigned public ranges, which can lead to leaks or collisions.
It seems identical in result to me :-)
If you think we should call them all Experimental (no Private Use), I have no
problem with that. If you think we should split it up, or say that the old
~147 private use numbers are really experimental, or something like that, I
have also no problem.
Either way: don't leak, don't assume it's your number when reading.
--
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]
