> On Jan 12, 2024, at 11:47 AM, Seth David Schoen <sch...@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