Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

18 Nov 2021

      On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:14 AM Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
...
I could be wrong, but I don't think expanding 1918 was the goal of these
proponents....
Hi Jay,

I would be happy with the compromise where the addresses are assigned
to "unicast; reserved." We can fight over exactly what unicast use
they should be put to 20 years from now when ordinary equipment and
software churn has rendered the addresses more or less usable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/