Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

Dave Taht wrote : https://github.com/dtaht/unicast-extensions/tree/master/rfcs I'd like lots more folk to review this before we punt it up to iana and the ietf,

IMHO, 240/4 is worth the effort as an extension to RFC1918 but the rest of that (127/8, 0/8) is not worth the effort. One or two more class A blocks does not change the big picture. And I suppose you are aware that there were several attempts before, including the last one submitted by APNIC, and that they all have been torpedoed by the IPv6 zealots. Michel.