In message <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA0E5098@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. microsoft.com>, Christian Huitema writes: > > I did share what I was smoking - it's called 'reality' :). > > Which reality? I think Randy is much more realistic! > > You are telling us that you want a /10 of private address space set aside b= > ecause you cannot use the current allocation of private address space in RF= > C 1918. You tell us that the effect you want to achieve cannot be attained = > if the address that you use are also used by customer networks. But then, t= > here is no mechanism whatsoever that would prevent customer networks from u= > sing the new /10 as soon as it would be allocated. Sure, you may put text i= > n a RFC somewhere, but that is not a mechanism. Ergo, if we were to make th= > at allocation, it will become unusable for your stated purpose in a very sh= > ort time.=20 > > I think that's not a very good idea. I would rather not see that allocation= > being made. By that logic I call for RFC 1918 to be made historic. > -- Christian Huitema > > > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf