On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:31 AM Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
On 3/7/22 2:14 PM, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
The cost of this software engineering should be minimal.
So basically no solution is offered to what is the showstopper for this proposal, only a hand wave that it "should be" easy to fix (but that's everyone else's problem). I mean, I believe this has been discussed to death many times over in the past and yet here we still are.
Hi Seth, AFAICT, the core of Abraham's proposal is to deploy 240/4 as an addition to RFC1918 space, to be used as folks' equipment permits. Activity beyond that (associated with IoT) appears to have no inter-domain application that need fall within the standards development space at this time. Would you care to articulate the showstopper problem you see for the standards-relevant portion of the proposal? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/