[ppml] 240/4

David Conrad wrote:
> On May 2, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> > If you write the draft now and ram it through as an RFC in less
> > than a year,
> > you would be extremely lucky to find 1% of the globally deployed
> > end systems
> > actually able to exist in a network that has been assigned part of
> > that
> > block before 2012.
> >
> > It is worth writing it up for Greenfield deployments of closed
> > systems that
> > will not need to include any of the Win9x systems that will
> > continue to be
> > in use.
> 
> This would appear to argue for RFC 1918 extension.

Kind of, but it is really a separate thing. If you make it in any way
related to 1918 then people will end up assigning it to networks that
include pre-definition end systems, even though this is known to fail. What
it has to be is its own version of a private-use that has limited
applicability to new Greenfield deployments that have absolutely no
expectation of including anything that exists today.

Tony