Re: IPv6? Re: Where to Use 240/4 Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Darrel Lewis <d () rrel me>]

> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org> wrote:
>
> Michael Thomas writes:
>
> > I wonder if the right thing to do is to create a standards track RFC that
> > makes the experimental space officially an add on to rfc 1918. If it works
> > for you, great, if not your problem. It would at least stop all of these
> > recurring arguments that we could salvage it for public use when the
> > knowability of whether it could work is zero.
>
> In 2008 there were two proposals
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fuller-240space/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilson-class-e/
>
> where the former was agnostic about how we would eventually be able to
> use 240/4, and the latter designated it as RFC 1918-style private space.
> Unfortunately, neither proposal was adopted as an RFC then, so we lost a
> lot of time in which more vendors and operators could have made more
> significant progress on its usability.

Well, we were supposed to all be using IPv6 (only) by now, and making 240/4 useable was just going to slow that process 
down.   

IMHO, this is what you get when religion is mixed with engineering.

-Darrel