Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

On 11 nov 2010, at 14.00, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 
> On 11/11/2010 11:11, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote:
>> To make sure I understand this - then the opposite should also be true.
>> That if a /10 is given for this, a lot of address space could be
>> returned to the RIRs free pools?
> 
> Without meaning to sound overly optimistic, I would fully expect this to happen - shortly after hell freezes over.

I said could, not would. And this is the part I don't understand. I am assuming the the NAT444 implementations won't be overlaynetworks, hence existing address space is being used for...what?

Best regards,

- kurtis -

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops