Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use
Randy Bush wrote:
as co-chair, i was really shy to scream at this, but since you opened
the gate :)
o this is just ula-c which has been killed in the ietf and died in
every other rir
o what if i need triple nat, shall we throw away another /8?
o use ipv6!
I have to agree with Randy here.
By the way, I thought it was the role of the IETF to determine the
address plan and define which parts of the address space are global
unicast and which parts are private use, etc. i.e. aren't these in
properly standards actions rather than actions of a policy process that
is focussed on the policies of the address distribution function?