> But, what we've been told by operators in the discussion about this
^ some
> draft is that "very unlikely" is not "sufficiently unlikely", and that
> no /10 within the set of RFC 1918 addresses makes the probability of a
> collision sufficiently unlikely. You may disagree with that claim,
> but I think we have to respect it.
aside from inter-operator acquisitions, this space will be used as 1918
and will soon have the same collision properties.
but we have had this discussion many times. no one is changing anyone's
minds. the iesg is simply trying to justify a bad position, where no
position is particularly good. how much email do we all have to read to
paper over the iesg's lack of guts?
randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf