Subject: Re: more on reclaiming 225/8

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:37:56 -0700

Anyone have any other comments on this? I do not believe
        that there will be a wider constituency (than the list)
        in London, so I see no benefit in waiting until we
        congregate there to make a decision. If it is decided
        that the assignment should be kept, someone please
        provide me with an overview of how the IANA can decide to
        reclaim 225/8 (otherwise, as I said, otherwise it's a
        permanent allocation; BTW, a explanation as to why it
        should be kept is also needed as the assignment has timed
        out). 

        Just so that there is no confusion, I against keeping
        the 225/8 assignment, for all the reasons that have been
        discussed on this list. In addition, as Randy so
        eloquently put it, the IANA has not and will not be a
        problem if we have a cogent proposal. 

        SUMMARY: I am proposing to the MALLOC WG that the 225/8
                 be returned to the IANA, and that a new assignment
                 be requested though standard IANA channels for
                 whatever experiment is next.  

        Dave

---

From: Hugh LaMaster <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:10:41 -0700 (PDT)

>                  whatever experiment is next.  

I concur with David Meyer's proposal.

--
 Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-21,    Email: [email-masked]
 NASA Ames Research Center     Or:    [email-masked]
 Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000  Or:    [email-masked]
 Phone: 650/604-1056           Disc:  Unofficial, personal *opinion*.

---

From: Mark Handley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:18:32 -0700

>                 whatever experiment is next.  

I was arguing against a rush to return this without proper discussion,
but I think the issue has now been properly aired and people given
enough opportunity to comment.

I don't see anyone arguing strenuously for keeping the allocation
while experiments are performed, so I agree with the above proposal.

Cheers,
	Mark

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:09:31 -0700

> I concur with David Meyer's proposal.

meeee tooooo

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 19:34:55 -0400

>                  whatever experiment is next.

This seems to me to be the proper thing to do.

--
                                 Regards
                                 Marshall Eubanks

T.M. Eubanks
Multicast Technologies, Inc
10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone : 703-293-9624       Fax     : 703-293-9609
e-mail : [email-masked]
http://www.on-the-i.com

Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/
 Check the status of multicast in real time :
 http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html