> I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole reason for
> allocating this space was that 1918 space _couldn't_ easily be used for CGN
> because there were too many conflicting usages. So, now we're making more 1918
> space? This is a good idea... how? If we need more 1918 space, let's do so
> deliberately, and not kill the usefulness of this space for CGN. (Unless, of
> course...)
> Noel
+1 on this and Brian's comment.
While I still support this draft, the wording in section 4 is probably too soft and reduces a lot the usefulness of this adressing space.
/JFT
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf