Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/17/10 3:48 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote: > 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. ham operators are know to be rather flexible (I'd expect most of the one's using ip based digital repeaters to be capable of reconfiguring their home cpe for example). While I'm moderately familiar with some applications of 44/8 in the ham space, I can also imagine them adopting a 6lowpan suite of technologies as better suited to that application over the long term. > Antonio Querubin > 808-545-5282 x3003 > e-mail/xmpp: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops