On 12/01/2011 19:47, Pete Resnick wrote: > The current draft says that the reason 1918 space can't be used is that > equipment that deals in 1918 address space is hosed if 1918 addresses > are used on their external interface. Let's assume that's true for a second (I haven't seen any evidence of that). We all know that if the /10 is allocated that people are going to use it for 1918 space. So, back to square 1. > Brian claimed that perhaps > 172.16/12 space might not be used by that equipment. Robert claimed that > perhaps only 192.168 and 10.0.0.x addresses are used by that equipment. > So the question I posed was, "Does any of *that* equipment use 172.16/12 > (or 10.x/16) space?" Nobody has said "yes". > > And *I'm* still not claiming that the answer is "No." I simply don't > know. But I'm inclined to hear from anybody to indicate that there is > *any* evidence that the answer is "Yes". That would make me much more > comfortable in concluding that new specialized address space is the > better horn of this bull to throw ourselves on. The lack of research on this point has been pointed out in the past, and TMK has never been addressed. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf