Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Antonio Querubin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, David Conrad wrote: > I believe 44/8 is currently being announced by UCSD as part of an > experiment -- I don't think this was the intended use of that /8. A Is experimentation now an illegitimate reason for keeping an allocation? > that is known to be air-gapped. e) getting a number of ham operators to > dust off and renumber their KA9Q boxes (or whatever) into different > prefixes in 44/8, perhaps via some sort of incentive if that's actually > necessary Too little too late. Probably just as easy (or difficult) to convince ham operators to migrate to IPv6. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: [email protected] _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops