My comfort level would be much higher if by the time that we need the extra address space, we have a fighting chance of actually being able to use it. So I think it would be a good idea to make it very clear that implementations must, in the absence of more specific information, regard class E space as regular unicast space, the same way the IPv6 addressing RFCs spell this out for IPv6 address space that hasn't received a specific purpose yet. If we do this now we have ten years or more to clean up implementations.
The reason why I responded to your original proposal was that I understood you were advocating that this space should be used to extend the private use RFC 1918 space, whereas I am advocating the view that this space should be considered part of the global use IPv4 unicast address pool. My apologies if I misunderstood what you were proposing.
Geoff
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
