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.
