----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Raszuk" <[email protected]> To: "SM" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:47 PM > Hi SM, > > Very good catch ... repurposing APNIC IPv4 address space was not > intended. Simply the address space in the example was chosen completely > randomly. > > I will remove that text from the final version of the document.
Or try 5737 IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation. Tom Petch > > Thank you very much for your review, > R. > > > At 09:07 29-05-2012, The IESG wrote: > > > >> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG > >> (grow) to consider the following document: > >> - 'Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA)' > >> <draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-08.txt> as Informational RFC > >> > >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > > > As a nit: > > > > "Generally, any more specific route which carries the same next hop as > > the VA-prefix 0/0 is eligible for suppression. However, provided > > that there was at least one less specific prefix (e.g., 1.0.0.0/8) > > and the next-hop of such prefix was different from that of the VA > > 0/0, those more specific prefixes (e.g., 1.1.1.0/24) which are > > otherwise subject to suppression would not be eligible for > > suppression anymore." > > > > From APNIC: > > > > inetnum: 1.1.1.0 - 1.1.1.255 > > netname: Debogon-prefix > > descr: APNIC Debogon Project > > descr: APNIC Pty Ltd > > > > Is there a reason why the Global Routing Operations WG is repurposing > > APNIC IPv4 address space in this draft? > > > > Regards, > > -sm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
