It might be useable as yet another private network reserved range. But like
others said only with a known good set of devices.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 2:05 AM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote:
>
> > leaking to the outside in e-mail headers or other payload is no
> different
> > from the current RFC local addresses
>
> Well, it is. For instance spam detection software might think that class-E
> in mail header means obligatory SPAM. I don't know, I'm just speculating.
>
> > The problem would be if you allowed the address to leak in the IP
> headers.
>
> There can be problems outside of just IP headers. The SIP people have IPv6
> problems even if they're not doing IPv6 (since it can pop up in the
> SIP signaling payload). There are lots of protocols that carry this kind
> of information within the protocol, and it does leak.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>