Thomas, > Thomas Narten wrote: > 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.
I will point out that there is a fine line between hijacking a prefix for development/documentation purposes and hijacking it on the 6bone or even on a production network, and we have seen in the past that this line could be crossed. The point I was trying to make is that the documentation prefix would be a prime candidate for the bogon list, and if it's big enough it would also be what new protocol developers would use in the initial phase, and possibly avoid some hijacking. That being said and as I mentioned before something slightly bigger than a /32 would be ok, but I would rather have a /24 as Marc mentioned. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
