North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: 240/4

  • From: michael.dillon
  • Date: Wed Oct 17 17:42:31 2007

> I'm trying to avoid setting the expectation that 240/4 is 
> just a simple extension to 10/8 and thus people should use it 
> *today* when they run out of space in RFC1918.

I don't believe you.

If you were really trying to "avoid setting the expectation" then you
would be communicating with the authors of to see
that the IETF gets their wording right.

This is IETF work and IANA work at this point, not NANOG work.

--Michael Dillon