Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

2019-07-27 Thread Stephen Satchell
On 7/27/19 2:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > something is broken on the nanog list. usually we have this discussion > twice a year. this time it may have been a couple of years gap. what > broke? 44/8. Sucked up all the oxygen.

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

2019-07-27 Thread Randy Bush
something is broken on the nanog list. usually we have this discussion twice a year. this time it may have been a couple of years gap. what broke? randy

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

2019-07-27 Thread johnl
In article <23868.39953.398906.559...@gargle.gargle.howl> you write: >Not particularly interested in arguing for using Class E space but >this "not compatible" reasoning would seem to have applied to IPv6 in >the early 2000s (whatever, pick an earlier date when little supported >IPv6) just as well,

Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

2019-07-27 Thread bzs
On July 26, 2019 at 21:19 do...@dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) wrote: > All of this, plus what Fred Baker said upthread. > > When I was running the IANA in the early 2000's we discussed this issue with > many different experts, hardware company reps, etc. Not only was there a > software issue

Re: Feasibility of using Class E space for public unicast (was re: 44/8)

2019-07-27 Thread Doug Barton
On 2019-07-26 11:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 10:36 PM Doug Barton > wrote: > So I'll just say this ... if you think that the advice I received from all of the many people I spoke to (all of whom are/were a lot smarter than me on this topic) w