I think as long as nobody is announcing this out to the general Internet,
this is an interesting proposal. If the prefix is allowed out on the
public Internet uncontrolled then I have a problem with potential DNS
hijacking and other issues (and I agree with Mr Hannigan that¹s where IETF
needs to come in)

Assuming that the members agree that the prefix would not be internet
reachable, do we want expand the scope of the proposal to ³Any service
with local-only significance within the autonomous system², and not limit
the use? I can see some other interesting uses that would not require
global routability, but need slightly more flexibility/reachability than
the usual RFC1918 space.

On 27/1/14 12:26 pm, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty@akamai.com> wrote:

>
>
>That and isn't the IETF the right venue to carve out a specific from a
>/8? This is in effect global policy, isn't it?
>
>
>On Jan 25, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>> and why won't this leak and make confusion?
>>
>> randy
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>      *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
>_______________________________________________
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy