Thank you, everyone, for your responses. Abe, I appreciate your enthisam but it is obvious you are not interested in collaboration. You are singularly-minded and trollish. I am assigning your email address to my spam filters. I will not see any future communication from you. O. On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, 4:13 p.m. Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:
Hi, Seth:
0) Thanks for bringing up this pair of Drafts.
1) While I believe your "IPv4 Unicast Extension" team carried on with the first, Avinta got accidentally exposed to the second. After analyzed the hurdle it faced in adding on to RFC1918, the EzIP Project is now focusing on enhancing CG-NAT by expanding RFC6598.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-13 16:08)
On 2024-01-12 14:45, Seth David Schoen 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.i...
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.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> <#m_2842409467345373561_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>