christopherh1
No user record in our sample, but christopherh1 has activity below (stories or comments). Likely we have partial data — the full bulk-load will fill profiles in.
No user record in our sample, but christopherh1 has activity below (stories or comments). Likely we have partial data — the full bulk-load will fill profiles in.
You are correct, 240/4 was never marked as public space, it was marked as Reserved for Future Use. Network operators squatting on 240/4 space should have never done so as it was not decided as to what it was going to be…
This proposal is not regarding repurposing 240/4 as RFC1918 space. It is regarding reclassifying it as Unicast space. I would recommend reading the article.
If people are using space that has been marked as "Reserved For Future Use" within their networks, then this is a problem that they must deal with and it must not affect or influence global usage. What about networks…
Our proposal isn't for 240/4 to be reclassified as RFC1918 space, it's for it to be reclassified as unicast space.