Subject: RES: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks

From: "Junior Corazza" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 20:21:54 -0200

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 So RFC2544 (which in my opinion is obsolete) has a block /15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" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul Wouters" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IP's for point-to-point and loopbacks
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
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.