Reviving the topic. Carlos, thanks for the reply. My idea is really this, why not create an RFC and define a blocks of IPs for that use? So RFC2544 (which in my opinion is obsolete) has a block /15 reserved, why not break that block in 2 /16? The first /16 continues with RFC 2544 and the second /16 we could use for network interconnect, point-to-point and loopback. That would be an RFC draft, right? Peço a ajuda da comunidade para tentarmos viabilizar essa ideia ------------ Message: 1 Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 17:25:59 -0300 From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Paul Wouters" <paul@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks Message-ID: <8BC77937-BBB0-4DC7-997D-09A1138691F3@xxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Hi! On 27 Oct 2017, at 16:54, Paul Wouters wrote: > However, there is a lot of unused multicast and reserved space left to > do assignments from. I?m not sure why we haven?t started nibbling on > those yet, other then wanting to promote ipv6? It?s been said around that those ranges would present problems if used on the public Internet. Namely, there is zero guarantee that they will be widely routable. Now, if we were to carve blocks for p2p and loopbacks from them _under the assumption that they are_ a kind ?extended/special use? private space, maybe it?s not such a bad idea.