> The nit:
>
> 192.0.2.0/12 (in Section 3) isn’t what I consider a well-formed prefix, since
> the third octet has a set bit but isn’t under the mask. I would’ve said
> 192.0.0.0/12. (Or better still 192.0/12, but that form seems to be
> disfavored.)
nit? looks like a full grown bug to me. <blush>
/12 seems excessive to make the point. how about the full example
becoming:
inetnum: 192.0.0.0/22 # example
remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_1
inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_2
If geofeed_1 contains geolocation data about 192.0.2.0/29, it is
ignored because 192.0.2.0/24 is within the more specific 192.0.2.0/24
inetnum: covering the address range and has a geofeed reference.
randy
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
