Hello Sylvain, Colleagues, > On 9 Jul 2022, at 22:52, Sylvain Baya via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > Is your issue simply with using 128.9.0.0/16 <http://128.9.0.0/16> and > 128.9.128.5/32 <http://128.9.128.5/32> as > examples rather than a prefix reserved for documentation or something > like 192.168.0.0/16 <http://192.168.0.0/16>? > > > No! as i have tried to say, it's about using an active > prefix, as an example of unreachable network's > prefix. > > ...i understand that it's out there well before it > became reachable; but imho there is no reason > to keep using it for such usecase :-/ >
Thank you for pointing this out. The paragraph following the "holes:" attribute definition is intended to describe the format of an address prefix, and the prefixes listed are not examples of holes. I will replace the examples with prefixes reserved for documentation from RFC 5737. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
