I believe we are in complete agreement when you say:
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf