> > Thomas Narten wrote: > > There has been some private discussion about the need > > for addresses for documentation, but it's probably worth > > discussing how much address space is needed for this > > purpose, and what the prefix should be (e.g., allocate > > out of 001/3?). the /32 length is a strawman.
> There is a fundamental question here, which is whether or not to > consider documentation new or not-yet-implemented proposals. If the > answer is yes, I have an immediate need for a /15. Let's say you want to > document a new protocol comparable to 6to4; you need a /16 right off the > bat. The intent of the "documentation prefix" is not for describing new protocols. Presumably, documents defining new protocols can give examples as they see fit (in IDs), and if the ID gets published as an RFC, any addresses needed would presumably be allocated (or something). Not something we need to worry about here. The purpose of the documentation prefix is assumed to be vendors wanting to give examples in their documentation for things like sample config files. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
