On 23/08/2011 12:56, Arturo Servin wrote: > On 23 Aug 2011, at 03:20, Terry Manderson wrote: >> Just as 169.254.0.0/16 is intended as Not Routable. Do you disagree with >> that? > > No, but you cannot tag this one in IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry.
I'm not convinced by this ID. The "Routable" column isn't flexible enough for the IANA v4 allocations list because IANA deals with multiples of /8 (for ipv4 allocations), while individual non-routable prefixes can be as small as /24. This alone calls into question whether the basic premise of the draft is worth pursuing. Would it not be better to approach this problem from a completely different direction? E.g. to formally recommend that end users consider everything routable except address space defined in RFC 3330 + its successors + the equivalent for ipv6? And then perhaps to put in some scary wording about the terrible consequences of using address space on your network that has been assigned to other organisations? Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
