Hi, Bill:
0) Thanks for bringing up the NANOG posting guideline. We now have
something tangible to discuss.
1) Section 6. looks most relevant. So, I copy and paste it below for
our discussion:
A. 6.1.1. "... > relevant excerpt 1 response to excerpt 1 ...
": This seems
Hi, Ant:
1) As I Cc:'ed you, I attempted to contact the author of the IPv4+
draft a few days ago to offer my reading of his work. I have not heard
any response. In short, I believe that IPv4+ is paraphrasing the scheme
of the unsuccessful RFC1385 that EzIP Draft cited as Informative
Refere
Hi, Eduard:
0) Appreciate very much for you spending the time to read all 55
pages of our draft and then offering your extensive thoughts.
1) "Your first pages are oriented for low-level engineers (“for
dummies”). ... ": Thanks. I believe that the Abstract, Introduction,
etc. at
Hi Abraham,
I propose you improve EzIP by the advice in the draft on the way how to
randomize small sites choice inside 240/4 (like in ULA?).
To give the chance for the merge that may be needed for a business. Minimize
probability for address duplication inside 240/4 block (that everybody would
4 matches
Mail list logo
