From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/001] ipv4: enable use of 240/4 address space Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:48:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20080111.174857.258424243.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080108011057.GA21168@cisco.com> <20080111.214120.129309556.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, vaf@cisco.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35795 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751191AbYALBs6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:48:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080111.214120.129309556.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:41:20 +0900 (JST) > There is no positive consesus on this draft > at the intarea meeting in Vancouver, right? > > We cannot / should not enable that space until we have reached > a consensus on it. This is so incredibly incorrect. There is consensus on making network stacks able to use this address space. And that is all that the patch does. The consensus is only missing on whether to make the address space public or private. This is also clearly spelled out in the draft. It is important to get as large of a head start on this as possible because of how long it takes to deploy something like this.