I think this "intra-standard", probably using white-boxes, could be an Open-Standard conducted by an RFC or IANA definition.
Something like: -> Equipments compliant with RFC WXYZ are able to use Classe E in their Interfaces without giving pokey messages "reserved for future use". So, if an organization wants to use that, they will require from the vendors the compliance with that RFC. Em ter., 9 de mar. de 2021 às 11:00, Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> escreveu: > Back a little bit ago when the thread about running out of RFC-1918 space > was going on, I was going to make a suggestion about repurposing the Class > E space in the case where one ran out of space, assuming one could get the > vendors on your network to support this address range. > > I sort of discarded the suggestion just because of the whole issue of that > range being hardcoded as invalid in so many implementations that this > didn't seem all that useful. > > On the other hand, if you're large enough that you're running out of > RFC-1918 space you might be able to exert enough power over select vendors > to get them to make this work for selected purposes. Router-to-Router > links, especially between higher-end routers seems to be one of those cases > that it might be useful. It might be the case that Amazon is already > doing this.... > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:07 PM Douglas Fischer <fischerdoug...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Has anybody seen that also? >> >> P.S.: I'm completely in favor of a complementary RFC assing FUTURE USE >> exclusively to "Between Routers" Link Networks... >> >> -- >> Douglas Fernando Fischer >> Engº de Controle e Automação >> > > > -- > - Forrest > -- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação
