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.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.



Virus-free.www.avast.com